Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates

Posted by: Lucander

Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 03/23/11 04:19 PM

Post your updates on the status of anchors on this thread. Be as specific as possible as to what anchors may need (ie: broken medium nut and rotten sling on p. 2 anchor of Erect Direction).

As New York is notoriously litigious, these are non-binding comments - simply observations about what the apparent status of anchors are and reports of hearsay as to what has been done to anchors.

DL
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 03/23/11 06:37 PM

I think that is a good example of an anchor that ought to be cleaned. Anyone capable of climbing that route is capable of setting up their own anchor there. But really, a hanging belay half-way up a free pitch is itself wrong and is in this case a distant relic of the days when the climb was aided.
Posted by: Coryred797

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 03/30/11 08:18 PM

What happened to the anchor on the ledge of Dennis, Belly roll? Used to be a rap anchor there, none there now.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Erect Direction hanging belay - 04/03/11 09:23 PM

The fixed anchor at the hanging belay has been removed. There still remains a nest of two nuts connected by a small, rusty twist link. One of them will have to be drilled out to be cleaned. behind that is another nut with a broken wire, which cannot be cleaned until the first one is cleaned. Everything else is gone. Plenty of room to build a gear anchor if you wish to break it up into two pitches.

RR
Posted by: schwortz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/05/11 07:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Coryred797
What happened to the anchor on the ledge of Dennis, Belly roll? Used to be a rap anchor there, none there now.


why would you need an anchor on that ledge at all? you could build a hundred gear anchors up there...theres a tree off left...you can climb both climbs in less than a ropelength...and walking off from there is a far better option than rapping

its been a while so i dont know if anyone has cleaned it up but i'd wanted to go clean up the anchor on criss cross direct before i left the gunks but never got to that one...that thing was/is a mess...it could obviously be chopped but people rarely seem to climb the upper part of the route so at the very least the sling nest can be swapped out for chain and quicklinks (the chain can be used to equalize the pins provided they're still good)
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/05/11 12:36 PM

Or just take it out completely and encourage people to do the entire route in one pitch. It's almost exactly 100' to the top, and the upper part is 5.8. I would wager doing it in one pitch is safer than belaying from that anchor anyway...there isn't a whole lot of gear to start the upper section.
Posted by: whatthegunks

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/05/11 01:45 PM

I added a nut/sling/biner to anchor just right of Tequila Mockingbird on Sunday. The anchor is above the roof on PT Call Home and is still not great, one very rusty pin, one pretty rusty pin and a .5 tri cam whose sling is white with rigor-mortis. There's old tat combing, a newer sling draped through rings from pin to pin and my nut and sling. I did not have my knife else I'd have made it right.

We rapped that route three times after TM, Dry Martini and then again after doing Land's End (which has a terrible P1 anchor). On the last time down we passed a party with leader thirty feet above belayer on P2 of TM. It was crazy to see that their "anchor" was primarily a .25 (black) tri-cam with an oh by the way back up to one of the pins. The leader went about fifteen feet before placing a piece above the belay, risking a thirty plus foot factor two fall onto a single inadequate anchor point that would almost certainly have failed in turn shock loading the pin which had a good foot or more of slack between it and belayer. YIKES!
Posted by: schwortz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/05/11 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: RangerRob
Or just take it out completely and encourage people to do the entire route in one pitch. It's almost exactly 100' to the top, and the upper part is 5.8. I would wager doing it in one pitch is safer than belaying from that anchor anyway...there isn't a whole lot of gear to start the upper section.


yeah. i think you're right and it would make it a nicer route to go to the top in one.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/06/11 03:18 AM

What the Gunks: Nice work on that rap line...I hate using that thing. I'd lover my second from the GT to avoid both of us having to use it.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/06/11 03:21 AM

Criss Cross Direct:

Use caution, as of last weekend the pitons were missing from the anchor, as were a few of the nuts, links, a biner, and a new coredellette. The remaining anchor is found small nuts "equalized" with a single quick link.

I kind of like an anchor there. Following the first move (crux) with 100 feet of rope out and a belayer out of eyesight would suck, and the route dramatically changes its nature above the "anchor." 5.8 R face climbing leads to a 5.10a exit move through a wild roof. Exhilarating, but a very different feel...

D. Lucander
Posted by: whatthegunks

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/06/11 01:45 PM

I'm going to the Nears in a bit and will fix that anchor, I agree with belaying second with less rope out with crux moves right off the ground.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/06/11 05:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
What the Gunks: Nice work on that rap line...I hate using that thing. I'd lover my second from the GT to avoid both of us having to use it.



Well, IMO that should be pulled, not reinforced :-). There are other gear options close by and rapping in to this from the GT is yet another convenience line on a tree which we as a community really should be discouraging.
Posted by: whatthegunks

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/06/11 08:05 PM

I guess I was forgetting what that anchor on criss cross is like which is pretty lame; some small wires in opposition in a horizontal eight feet above a ledge with plenty of gear options. What that anchor is for is to top rope P1 and bail which I didn't feel like leaving anything new for. I thought about stripping it all together but left it as is.

I disagree with you Ian. The rap anchor allows for descent with a single rope and cord tied loosely (not the knot) around the trunk of a tree does much less damage than people walking/standing around. Soil compaction, which leads to erosion, is a much greater threat to cliff top environments than sling anchors. Better to finish route and rap than traipse around on ledges and cliff tops.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/07/11 05:44 PM

Originally Posted By: whatthegunks


I disagree with you Ian. The rap anchor allows for descent with a single rope and cord tied loosely (not the knot) around the trunk of a tree does much less damage than people walking/standing around. Soil compaction, which leads to erosion, is a much greater threat to cliff top environments than sling anchors. Better to finish route and rap than traipse around on ledges and cliff tops.


Which might be fine IF it wasn't predicated on people only arriving at that location from below. Instead it creates a new descent point that folks topping out on other climbs will gravitate towards i.e. foot traffic, tree damage and the problems you point out at yet another point on the cliffs. I'm all for reducing rap traffic on people ascending.. it would be nice if that could be managed more effectively given the crush on popular routes on weekends. I just don't agree that slinging trees for convenience is the solution. Plus I don't think a single 60m won't get you down from the top. You end up at that dangerous rats nest with the rusty time bomb pins.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/07/11 05:49 PM

The rap line for Dry Martini/Tequila Mocking Bird really has only one reasonable option - and that is the one being discussed. It's a good descent route, really goes over no terrain that is frequently climbed.

Walking left or right brings one through thick GTL forestry. Proceeding left, one would thrash his or her way a couple hundred feet to Overhanging Layback, which means one would rappel on top of Grave Yard Shift. Proceeding right, one would go towards Credibility Gap's top out - itself an adventure to get off of.

D.L.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/07/11 06:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
The rap line for Dry Martini/Tequila Mocking Bird really has only one reasonable option - and that is the one being discussed. It's a good descent route, really goes over no terrain that is frequently climbed.

Walking left or right brings one through thick GTL forestry. Proceeding left, one would thrash his or her way a couple hundred feet to Overhanging Layback, which means one would rappel on top of Grave Yard Shift. Proceeding right, one would go towards Credibility Gap's top out - itself an adventure to get off of.

D.L.


Well, last time I chopped that rap anchor (mentioned it in a thread a while back) I did exactly what you suggested. I don't recall any thrashing. It was a leisurely walk with time to smell the flowers. Why not just put a rap anchor at the top of every line if you want convenience? I know, you didn't suggest that, I'm just turning up the contrast so that we can see where this thinking leads..
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/08/11 04:54 PM

I don't recall enough about these particular anchors to have a valid opinion, about the issues in this particular case, but...

After screwing it up initially, the Preserve quickly realized that placing bolts to eliminate the proliferation of deteriorating and unsightly rap anchors would end up being a never-ending task that would eventually bolt the entire cliff. What they turned to was the idea that a few well-positioned rap descent routes would serve the entire cliff and keep things from building up willy-nilly everywhere.

The idea makes sense, but doesn't seem to be working out in practice. Perhaps there aren't enough established bolted rap lines, or perhaps climbers will just never stop fabricating convenience anchors, with an extremely high standard of convenience being the norm; basically, as soon as I stop the delectable crux climbing on my route, I want to be able to rap immediately directly back to where I left my pack.

Ironically, the established rap lines appear to be falling into the same category as walking back along the top; too difficult, too time-consuming, and too inconvenient to utilize. Would things get any better if more bolted rap lines were added? It is hard to say, but I think that unless climbers begin to agree not to poop slingage all over the cliffs, there is little reason to be optimistic.

The existence of even substandard rap anchors seems to blind some parties to alternatives. This twig has slings on it, therefore we should rap here, and if the twig doesn't appear to be sturdy enough, then what we have is a rap anchor that needs to be improved, as opposed to one that need to be dismantled.

There is no intrinsic right to have a rap station where you want it. The cliff had virtually no raps stations anywhere for twenty or thirty years and somehow people managed to get up and down their climbs. Now the discussion is framed in terms of which stations are "essential."

The best way climbers could honor the Preserve's mission and the climbing traditions that have made the Gunks one of a dwindling number of trad crags in the US is to take the sternest possible view of added rap stations and cut most of them down.
Posted by: whatthegunks

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/08/11 07:36 PM

How long would it take before the cliff top looked like the cliff base if your vision of a return to the old days were to come true? I value your wisdom enormously, RG, but I think that you are not factoring into this the sheer number of people climbing. If climbers did not rap and instead walked off of each climb there'd be tens of thousands of laps walked across the cliff top, hundreds, reasonably assuming that folks would be doing at least a couple of routes each visit. This would decimate the fragile environment atop the Trapps. There'd end up being a spidery network of social paths that would result in whole sale erosion of the thin matt of top soil and death of blue berries and trees and all else.

Short of the Preserve dramatically scaling back the number of climbers allowed in to pre 1980's levels, the cliffs are going to be chock full of climbers and our attendant impact. Frankly, to take the line of thinking further, it WOULD be best if people simply rapped right back to their packs after doing their climb. I mean this from a strictly environmental stand point. Rap anchors on "twigs" aside, I am saying that the more people's activities are focussed in areas where they are not creating new impacts, established climbs and trails, the more that the Preserve's mission is being fulfilled. I'd argue too (devil's advocate) that gang top roping, hang dogging and all sorts of other sport climbing accouterments are as much Gunks traditions as walk offs, painter's pants and swami belts.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/08/11 08:29 PM

I referred to walking back but did not and am not advocating it. Ever since on-road parking was discontinued, forcing climbers to carry everything with them to the base of the climb, walking back became impractical other than for a few routes near the Uberfall.

The lack of traffic up top has been a good thing for the environment up there, but a scenario, admittedly no longer a practical one, in which climbers walked to the base of climbs already equipped and did not return to the base would have distributed the population load over a larger region, making the massive erosion at the cliff base considerably less, and would have freed the routes from the fusterclucks imposed by descending climbers on ascending parties. Although we'll never know, I don't think it obvious that a more balanced usage might not have been better in the long term.

As for focusing impacts to keep new ones from happening, that was the Preserve's idea about established bolted rap lines, but seems to be happening is that climbers keep establishing new impacts by adding new convenience anchors.

One way of looking at this is that the Trapps is by now one giant impact and has already been sacrificed to the demands of convenience. With luck, the never-ending spread of these conveniences will help to create a generation of climbers with little or no interest in branching out to far more inconvenient areas that are now untouched by comparison.

But it is just as possible that populations will move out, and they will simply bring their current practices with them, so that newer areas will be almost immediately overrun with rap and toprope anchors; this is what happened at Lost City, and in view of climbers' overwhelming new tendency to foul their nests, I'm beginning to think that restricting climbing access to certain areas is a good idea.

As for the argument that sport climbing practices at the Gunks are by now as "traditional" as, say, having to construct your own belay anchor, something that a growing cohort of "trad" climbers are only marginally competent at, I can only say that traditions per se are of no intrinsic value.

What I think is of value is keeping the gunks as a place where future generations can still experience the best aspects of trad (as opposed to sport) climbing. There are fewer and fewer crags where this is possible; sport climbing, as Royal Robbins said, is the child that wants to eat its mother.
Posted by: whatthegunks

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/12/11 01:45 PM

Was it once the norm for climbers to leave the extras, the Gatorade, foot long deli sandwiches, chips, bars, coffee, extra gear, cell phone, novel, laptop, dog, hammock, cooler, GoPro video recorders, bouldering mattresses.... in their car? I find it hard to believe. Two friends casting off quietly, leaving as much metal and plastic and noise behind, for a day of adventuring in a vertical world? Sounds perfect, my personal favorite.

Yesterday a mutual friend said in reference to this thread, "his position hasn't changed". The thing is, climbing has changed. What has changed most is the fact that climbing has become a mainstream activity. Even ice climbing has become popular. There are more and more people coming out to the cliffs and their perceptions about the games climbers play are all over the place.

One thing that's stayed largely unchanged is the general herd mentality that the most climbers have. This idea that the Trapps are a huge impact zone, at least parts in particular, is completely accurate. Areas like Frog's Head, Mac Wall, Arrow, (the Nears north of Loose Goose), these areas have become a sort of vertical city park. Parks have lots of visitors that use them in a variety of ways and they get managed to support those different uses. Some folks are going to use the Mac Wall to get their uber athlete pump doing laps on Fly Again et al, others are going bumble their way up the a first multi pitch lead on Three Pines and another pair are taking MF to the top on their way to an "El Cap" day. This is current reality and a common thread here is that people are leaving their Winnebago (er backpack) at the base of the cliff and returning to it after one or a couple of pitches of climbing.

I don't know how many rappel anchors are enough, I mean they are all "convenience anchors" in the end. I do believe that anchors most commonly used should be bomb proof and be placed so as to limit impact on natural features and on people climbing below. Bad, poorly thought out anchors should not be placed or should be removed. Many of the most ridiculous anchors are not new but ancient relics that were dumb when they were created and have been backed up with one more strand over and over leaving messy lumps of crusty tat that are time bombs.

Dialogue on this forum, in the shop and at the crag will help to establish at least some consensus as to which anchors should be fixed and which should go.

Lost City and other more out of the way places will intermittently see more visitors in the coming years, hell it's barely more than an hour to hike to even the most far flung places. Keeping them free of trash, unnecessary rap anchors and out of print or digital guides is going to take effort. The Preserve has taken steps to limit the use of both LC and Bonticou by guides, allowing only one guide with two clients per service on any given day.

Posted by: Steven Cherry

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/12/11 06:01 PM

The comment "How long would it take before the cliff top looked like the cliff base" ignores the fact that many climbers don't go to the top of the cliff, non-climbers, by and large, don't go to the top of the cliff, and even climbers, by and large, don't linger at the top of the cliff eating lunch, hanging out while other people climb, read books, play with their dogs, etc.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/12/11 06:20 PM

All those commas, but no terminal period?

;-)
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/12/11 08:37 PM

Harvest Moon anchor no longer exists, the tree tipped over. Retreating from this climb (as well as for Honky Tonk Woman) now requires rappelling Hang Ten. Let's see how long that tree lasts.

DL
Posted by: Kent

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/12/11 08:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
Criss Cross Direct:

Use caution, as of last weekend the pitons were missing from the anchor, as were a few of the nuts, links, a biner, and a new coredellette. The remaining anchor is found small nuts "equalized" with a single quick link.

I kind of like an anchor there. Following the first move (crux) with 100 feet of rope out and a belayer out of eyesight would suck, and the route dramatically changes its nature above the "anchor." 5.8 R face climbing leads to a 5.10a exit move through a wild roof. Exhilarating, but a very different feel...

D. Lucander


Falling from the 5.8 R section onto that anchor would be very very bad. It's a great pitch nonetheless with a very exciting exit.

There is a way to protect the second at the close to the ground crux, even if the leader is at the top, if anyone wants to talk gear. It's a bit convoluted but perhaps better than risking falling on that lousy mid climb anchor. It works for protecting the second on P1 if stringing the first two pitches of Enduroman together too. It's pretty simple really.
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/13/11 01:53 PM

Nothing wrong with a little thread drift, Kent. What is your solution?
Posted by: Daniel

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/13/11 10:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Falling from the 5.8 R section onto that anchor would be very very bad. It's a great pitch nonetheless with a very exciting exit.


Contributing to thread drift...

I wandered onto that pitch, going too far on the p2 traverse on Broken Sling. Unable (or unwilling) to go back, I kept going up looking for gear. The exit roof looked protectable, so that's where I went and inadvertently did my first 5.10.

A possible link-up for the adventurous, I suppose. (Broken Cross?)
Posted by: Kent

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/14/11 01:43 PM

Originally Posted By: chip
Nothing wrong with a little thread drift, Kent. What is your solution?


Drift/

First, the two climbs I mention, Criss Cross and Enduroman, are in crowded areas, and so other climbers are often hanging around waiting to climb. Recruit one.

Then the leader trails two full strength ropes. Let's call them ropes #1 and #2. Rope #1 is to lead on, and rope #2 is for rigging through a gear anchor placed at a decent rest on the first pitch. Rope #2 gets fed back down to the ground. Then the leader leads all the way to the top of pitch 2 on rope #1.

The following climber, still on the ground, ties into both ropes and climbs. Rope #1 is belayed by the leader at the top of pitch 2. Rope #2, which is effectively a top rope, is belayed by the recruit from the ground. When the following climber reaches the anchor for rope #2, the recruit is free to go and rope #2 can be dropped or trailed.

If this is done on Criss Cross the risks associated with the iffy gear at the beginning of the R section are greatly reduced and the following climber is still well protected from rope stretch and ground fall at the near ground pitch 1 crux.

If this is done on the first two pitches of Enduroman it allows the leader to follow a more elegant line, a crack that transects the Directissima traverse, rather than going up to the belay at the top of the ramp before starting pitch 2, while still protecting the following climber from rope stretch and ground fall on the close to the ground crux of pitch 1.

Another alternative is to lead straight to the top of pitch 2 and have a very strong follower, one who is very unlikely to fall at the close to the ground crux, but those two cruxes are 10a and 11c respectively. Pretty stout for most.

Drift\
Posted by: whatthegunks

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/18/11 03:30 PM

The anchor on Tequila/PT Call Home is good for another couple of years now. Thinking of scrapping the tat under the roof on PT. Route looks very cool. Beta?
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/19/11 02:15 AM

The Laughing Man anchor (commonly used as a mid-way rappel line from Welcome to the Gunks, Asphodel, and Credibility Gap) was beefed up with a surprisingly good nut. There's still lots of manky tat, good tat, and rusty pitons that I have no idea how to replace comprising that anchor. Presently, it has two-three pitons, two good nuts, and a crusty pink tricam.

DL
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/22/11 03:31 AM

Just left of the first major roof of Ursula & Nose Drops is a fixed anchor (same height as the bottom of the Bonnies Roof crux). Does anyone know what it's for? I'm pretty sure it's left of the Nose Drop crux and right of Knockout Drops if I'm reading Gray Dick correctly. The climbing is 5.easierthan9 and the climbing is nice. The anchor is in so-so rock and consists of one large nut, a rusty angle, and an angle/leeperZ stack that is scary to look at.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/23/11 01:50 AM

cfrac,

I have no idea what that anchor is for. I've seen people bail off Bonnie's with it...

DL
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/26/11 02:28 AM

Yeah it's weird.

Was up on Son of Easy-o and someone put new slings, added a new angle (the other 2 angles are about to crumble apart) and a friend. Much better than what was there before, Thanks mysterious healer of the anchor!
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/26/11 11:25 AM

Originally Posted By: cfrac
Yeah it's weird.

Was up on Son of Easy-o and someone put new slings, added a new angle (the other 2 angles are about to crumble apart) and a friend. Much better than what was there before, Thanks mysterious healer of the anchor!

On the anchor 20ft from the top? Wish we had a mysterious chopper instead.
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/26/11 12:19 PM

Yes, the anchor 20 feet from the top. I like this anchor because the top-out is mini rubble gully.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/26/11 12:43 PM

True that. I suspect that this is why that otherwise pointless anchor was installed. Perhaps the anchor fairy would consider removing the anchor and adding a small broom to keep the top nice and clean.

Originally Posted By: cfrac
Yes, the anchor 20 feet from the top. I like this anchor because the top-out is mini rubble gully.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/26/11 01:02 PM

Does the anchor fairy wear a french maid's outfit and look like Katie Brown?
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/26/11 01:58 PM

Originally Posted By: RangerRob
Does the anchor fairy wear a french maid's outfit and look like Katie Brown?


yes, but I find the beard something of a turn-off.
Posted by: schwortz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/28/11 11:58 PM

+1 for chopping that anchor
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/29/11 11:13 AM

Someone tried chopping that before. Word has it that this would take some kind of chisel...Maybe Katie Brown wasn't carrying one.

DL
Posted by: Jeff D.

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/29/11 01:07 PM

The more people that belay up in the rubble gully, the sooner somoene sitting at the base is going to get blasted with a golfball sized rock and sent to the hospital. I think the safety issues outweigh the negatives with that anchor. Just my opinion.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/29/11 04:23 PM

I've always belayed at SOEO anchor (backed up with a few pieces), then had my second finish the "pitch" above. This lets me see my partner on those slippery opening moves, have communication while they are under the roof, and avoid knocking rubble down.

D. Lucander
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/29/11 06:31 PM

I haven't seen the recent reinforcement, but I haven't trusted that anchor for years and would never rap off it. BITD, we just used to unrope there and solo down Easy O, but those days are long past...

I agree that traffic in the gully at the top is likely to pepper the cliff with rockfall and so a legitimate argument could be made for an anchor there to keep the riff-raff off the top.

What I've done for several years, given that few of my partners will go down Easy O unroped, is to do the 5.easy traverse right and up to the ledge above City Lights/Pas de Deux and either rap from the bolts there if it is clear below, or otherwise continue traversing across that ledge to the bolts located above the midpoint of the Maria traverse and rappel from there.

The availability of this option strikes me as an excellent reason not to have a fixed anchor above Son of Easy O, but the trouble is that too many people, in the absence of an anchor right in front of their eyes, will just go on to the rubble festival above.
Posted by: tradjunkie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/29/11 06:47 PM

I second RG's suggestion to exit right, though one can walk off if City Lights is busy...
The issue is how to get the nonreaders of this forum to do so, especially the first-time or infrequent climbers - or the climbers of Easy O itself, who I think are the real concern.

Unless the rubble were somehow stabilized - but it's the climber traffic that has destabilized it.
Posted by: Coppertone

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/29/11 09:43 PM

I am certainly one guilty of using that anchor and never go the extra 30 ft to the due the danger of knock down debris no matter how careful you are. Since I usually lead that pitch and back up that anchor and usually rap first when it backed up and leave my second to clean the anchor and rap.

If climbing that with Rich I am sure that he would make me down climb but we have not had the please of doing Son of Easy O together as of yet.

I am usually one for chopping convenience anchors as they serve no purpose, but this one is a little more than convenience, protecting everyone below from the ariel assault that you takes place if one goes all the way to the top.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/02/11 01:16 AM

Cut a bunch of old manky sun bleached tat off of No Recollection and replaced it with a nice drab colored length of 1" tubular. That said, I will not comment ont eh quality of the blocks this anchor is slung around...yikes!

Headless Horseman could use some work, I was out of webbing by the time I got there. Same could be said for Silly Chimney.

d. lucander
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/02/11 03:23 AM

People rap down Silly Chimney now?
Posted by: tradjunkie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/02/11 05:31 AM

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
People rap down Silly Chimney now?


Says the man who wears belay gloves just in case that unexpected factor 2 fall happens smile
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/02/11 09:24 AM

Silly Chimney is a great way down, 1 rappel with 1 rope and you're on the ground. Useful for getting off everything from Lichen 40 Winks, Bonnie's, Yellow Wall area, and even Double Crack.

dl
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/02/11 01:21 PM

Originally Posted By: tradjunkie
Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
People rap down Silly Chimney now?


Says the man who wears belay gloves just in case that unexpected factor 2 fall happens smile


But I take them off to climb down Silly Chimney.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/02/11 01:47 PM

I am occasionally partial to the brief but energetic suffering on Last Frontier. I doubt many others are but there is a nest o'crap at the anchor at the exit that could use a do-over from the anchor fairy. I've added slings, but some nice new webbing would make the place look positively inviting. btw, anyone done the upper pitches? Looked a little lichen-encrusted, purportedly 5.8 R/X?
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/03/11 12:28 PM

Ian,
Have you been on Last Frontier recently? About a month ago, I replaced a bunch of webbing. There was so much mank, I could hardly fit a carabiner around the anchor. Cut much of it off, added a new piece of 1" tubular.

D. L.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/03/11 01:07 PM

Not this season. Thanks for this.
Originally Posted By: Lucander
Ian,
Have you been on Last Frontier recently? About a month ago, I replaced a bunch of webbing. There was so much mank, I could hardly fit a carabiner around the anchor. Cut much of it off, added a new piece of 1" tubular.

D. L.
Posted by: phlan

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/03/11 02:49 PM

it's not a rappel anchor but how about the crux bolt on wonderland? will it ever be replaced? sente got new bolts but not the one important bolt on wonderland? it's seemed a bit questionable to me for years.
Posted by: fotovult

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/03/11 03:18 PM

DL - thanks for the work amigo, I know you've been out there this season replacing some tat with more solid anchors.
Posted by: BrianRI

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/04/11 12:58 PM

I second phlan about the bolt on Wonderland. I've mentioned this in a previous thread on anchors/bolts. It looks like a homemade hanger and is rusty.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/04/11 03:04 PM

First time I did Wonderland I did it from way down at the bottom, which was my first 5.9, and my first R rated route. I was VERY happy to clip that bolt!
Posted by: schwortz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/05/11 06:47 AM

Originally Posted By: RangerRob
First time I did Wonderland I did it from way down at the bottom, which was my first 5.9, and my first R rated route. I was VERY happy to clip that bolt!


how else do people do it?

(i'm guessing they traverse in from wisecrack???)
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/05/11 02:06 PM

Yeah I guess the normal route traverses in from the left and is 5.8 and not R
Posted by: KathyS

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/12/11 03:46 PM

What's up with the new steel cable rap station at the top of Betty? Strange arrangement with frayed wire ends ready to poke anyone attempting to use it. We walked off, as usual, and did not use it.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/12/11 06:07 PM

Kathy, I wondered the same a few weeks ago (and walked off as usual). Next day I met a guy/guide named Jason? who was discussing anchor replacement with Paul Curran; I brought up the new Betty wires, and Paul said it was a "french weave" and is safe. Jason said he knew who'd been installing those, and intended to have a word with him.

I try to keep an eye on the Urusla anchor, but haven't been up there yet this year. Anyone?
Posted by: schwortz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/12/11 08:08 PM

seriously? someone is putting in new cable anchors? unreal

jay - dont hold back when you have those words
Posted by: KathyS

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/13/11 01:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Julie
Kathy, I wondered the same a few weeks ago (and walked off as usual). Next day I met a guy/guide named Jason? who was discussing anchor replacement with Paul Curran; I brought up the new Betty wires, and Paul said it was a "french weave" and is safe. Jason said he knew who'd been installing those, and intended to have a word with him.

I try to keep an eye on the Urusla anchor, but haven't been up there yet this year. Anyone?


It may be safe, but the loose ends need to be oriented away from the rap rings and perhaps wrapped with duct tape to keep them from further fraying and poking potential users. It's a fairly unattractive arrangement, and I wonder if the pair of steel cables will do more damage to the tree than a soft nylon sling would.

Ursula may be one spot where cables might be beneficial, if they can fit around the pinch point in the rocks. Seems the nylon bits there are often frayed from the sharp rock. Haven't been on it yet this year.
Posted by: schwortz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/13/11 09:43 PM

Originally Posted By: KathyS

I wonder if the pair of steel cables will do more damage to the tree than a soft nylon sling would.


that misses the point. you dont need ANY fixed anchor at the top of betty. walk off.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/15/11 05:46 PM

Anyone else think the tree on Drunkards is a bit sketchy?
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/11 01:25 AM

Which tree on Drunkards? In the past I've seen slings wrapped around the twig below roof (at p. 1 belay) and there are usually rappel slings atop p. 2 on the GT Ledge. Then there's the odd bundle of branches growing below the roof off to the right, part of Bloody Mary. Some fools like to TR off of it...

DL
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/11 03:17 AM

Ah.. i guess it is more the top of Bloody mary. I had never heard anything about P2 of Drunkards so I had assumed it wasn't much so we skipped it. i see now that it is actually recommended. We should have kept going up.

partner cleaned drunkards off it but I backed it up for sure.

Do you need to use that tree when coming down from Drunkards p2/3? if so my anchor suggestion should still stand since that thing is crap and in a fairly popular area.
Posted by: schwortz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/11 04:44 AM

top pitch of drunkards is pretty fun if easy climbing

easiest descent is to walk left or right to another route
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/11 05:32 AM

Drunkard's descent options (from a pampered 30 year old)

1. Finish the route (worth doing once a year) and walk to climber's left. Rap City Lights.

2. From GTL atop p. 2: walk left and rap the bolted line just left of Maria.

Do NOT go to that tree and rap. Inspect it closely. Little to no root structure and it's being held in place by stable but less than perfect rock. I went to that tree back in my "younger" days with a 50+ year old veteran. He, a veteran Red Rock (back when it was spooky) climber and early ascentionist of El Cap) refused to rap from that tree. Lesson learned.

DL
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/11 12:09 PM

3. A short distance to the left is the excellent 5.4 top pitch of Sixish or its 5.10 direct variation (the original aid line that gave Sixish its name).

4. A short distance to the right is the excellent top pitch of Morning After, with its Yosemite-like and, in my opinion, solid 5.8 final twenty feet.

5. If walking left to the Maria rap bolts, might as well do the classic 5.6 top pitch of Maria.

6. Another option from the top is to walk right and rap Arch from bolts. If you have two 60's, it is a single rap to the ground IF you swing left at the bottom (be careful here).
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/11 04:34 PM

I used that tree last fall, don't remember it seeming sketchy.

We are talking about the tree on the GT ledge, yes? I'm surprised to hear this.

The tree atop the traditional pitch one, which sits below the big roof, had slings around it in the fall and I thought it was total crap.
Posted by: agale

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/11 04:56 PM

The anchor atop P1 of Nurse's Aid is troubling. The cable around the tree has been choking the tree for years. Each year, the tree grows fatter and increases the tension in the cable. You can't see how the cable clamps are holding up because the cable is protected with hose. Granted my imagination is a little vivid (i see the cable slipping through the cable clamp each year as another annular ring is added). This anchor needs to be removed to help the tree and should be replaced with a looser cable.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/11 06:53 PM

It's too bad trees don't make obvious noises when they are slowly being choked to death over the course of 5-10 years. If they did, the entire cliff would be a deafening roar of sylvan death throws!
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/11 07:32 PM

Anyone have any idea how big a bolt cutter one needs for these wire anchors?
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/11 07:47 PM

Rich, the Betty wires? They're ~1/2" in diameter IIRC. Go for it.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/11 08:45 PM

Originally Posted By: SethG
I used that tree last fall, don't remember it seeming sketchy.

We are talking about the tree on the GT ledge, yes? I'm surprised to hear this.

The tree atop the traditional pitch one, which sits below the big roof, had slings around it in the fall and I thought it was total crap.


No seth, I mistakenly went all the way over to the tree below the roof on Bloody Mary. It has slings and rap rings and is sketch. was easily backed up with as many cams as you wanted though.
Posted by: schwortz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/11 11:40 PM

if the jaws of the cutter are new the short (<2ft) ones will do.

hacksaw will work too. cut where the hose is covering it to help prevent fraying. some wraps of duct tape to keep it together helps too.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/11 11:48 PM

Originally Posted By: jakedatc
Originally Posted By: SethG
I used that tree last fall, don't remember it seeming sketchy.

We are talking about the tree on the GT ledge, yes? I'm surprised to hear this.

The tree atop the traditional pitch one, which sits below the big roof, had slings around it in the fall and I thought it was total crap.


No seth, I mistakenly went all the way over to the tree below the roof on Bloody Mary. It has slings and rap rings and is sketch. was easily backed up with as many cams as you wanted though.


Oh yeah, that one is also crap. The second pitches there are all great, Bloody Mary, Drunkard's and Morning After. Next time keep going!
Posted by: gunks

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/17/11 01:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Julie
Rich, the Betty wires? They're ~1/2" in diameter IIRC. Go for it.


While you're at it, please go cut the wire anchor at the top of Baby. Thanks.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/17/11 02:15 PM

These cable anchors must take a relatively high amount of effort to install. Whoever is putting them in surely means well, maybe we could find out who it is and engage in a civil discussion about where they belong and where they don't?

When did that Baby anchor go in? I don't remember it being there the last time I was on Baby, but that was probably in 2008 or 2009... I agree there isn't a need for it there as the City Lights chains are just a few feet away and the walkoff is even better. With all that loose crap on top of Baby and crowds below, rapping there is just a bad idea.

Last weekend I did Shit or Go Blind & No Picnic and there is a steel cable anchor on the tree there as well. It looked to be a relatively recent installation, and it was put in with transparent tubing around the cable so that the cable can be visually inspected for wear. That location, just left of the Gerdie Block, is obviously another place where topping out and walking off is pretty easy to do, but I was happy to have the convenience anchor, which isn't visible from the ground.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/17/11 02:43 PM

Originally Posted By: SethG
When did that Baby anchor go in? I don't remember it being there the last time I was on Baby, but that was probably in 2008 or 2009... I agree there isn't a need for it there as the City Lights chains are just a few feet away and the walkoff is even better. With all that loose crap on top of Baby and crowds below, rapping there is just a bad idea.


The Baby, Betty, and Classic cliff-top anchors come and go with some regularity.

I think the crucial point is this: how can we communicate to all the people who climb Betty and Baby, but don't check this board daily, or know the cliff like the back of their hand, that there are preferable options nearby?

If we - 'we' who chop anchors - don't take steps in that direction, the anchors will reappear. On the other hand, if 'we' attempt to organize traffic, perhaps we could do some good.

Seth has a good point, that the anchors take some effort to install, and presumably that's good faith effort on behalf of the whole climbing community. Chopping those anchors without further ado is spitting in the face of that good faith effort.

Perhaps some kind of laminated card (which I think is a previously used strategy) where the old anchor was?

Just a thought.
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/17/11 03:42 PM

It would be nice if the Preserve would sign those cards rather than starting a stare down or worse between climbing factions.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/17/11 07:03 PM

I agree with Julie and Seth; the cable guys have put in some effort (and invested their own money) and surely mean well.

I think the Preserve had a laminated card on the Jackie tree for a while.

The user base is now very large, diverse, and dispersed. It is not clear how to even begin promoting consensus. In the absence of consensus, we could just end up with "anchor wars." And this applies not only to slings and cables on trees, but also to the deterioration of fixed anchors and the decision about whether or not to replace them.

I doubt much can be done unless the Preserve decides to embrace a more active management role, something they have been loath to do for reasons both philosophical and legal.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/17/11 11:24 PM

Originally Posted By: chip
It would be nice if the Preserve would sign those cards rather than starting a stare down or worse between climbing factions.


I certainly did not want to start that when I began this thread - I'm only 5'5" and have skinny legs.

That said, thread drift has not plagued us too much yet. Keep posting conditions, modifications, and reinforcements.

D. Lucander
Posted by: schwortz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 12:41 AM

short of the preserve stepping in or local guides coming to a consensus and enforcing it through their actions and teachings rg is right that its difficult to reach consensus on where anchors should be. but that doesn't mean it should be a free-for-all.

well intentioned or not, the installation of new fixed cables is not the way forward. especially with the existence of a large number of bolt anchors, full height rappel routes, and the tried and true method of walking off. especially given that they are being placed on routes so close the uberfall area descent routes and walk-offs. especially in such close proximity to existing bolted stations.

signs arent needed for each climb. if there is no anchor at the tree directly over your climb then walk to the next set of anchors and/or walk off. end of story. put that on the pass. put it on the bulletin board. put it on the website. but lead by example. tell people. teach them. and chop stupid anchors.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 01:16 PM

Maybe if we posted a note on the bulletin board, something like:

"Dear steel cable installer:

Please check out this thread on Gunks.com:

http://gunks.com/ubbthreads7/ubbthreads.php/topics/57517/1

There is an ongoing discussion about the appropriate places for rappel anchors, and it would be great if you participated.

Sincerely,

Some Gunks People"
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 01:26 PM

Perhaps these cables are being installed as permanent anchors by guides? I would be surprised that anyone else would put so much effort and some money into this project. Might be worth asking if anyone bumps into them.
Posted by: Jeff D.

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 02:23 PM

In my opinion, the source of this problem is that we have a 400 page guidebook that provides a plethora of routes up the wall, but no source for determining the best way to descend the cliff. I will admit that I have apprehension about descents, especially when I have less experienced climbers in tow. I do not enjoy walking the cliff edge unroped searching for other anchors which may or may not be more convenient descents, with no real easy way to determine that from the top. I know that the easy answer is to walk off and that it is certainly the answer for certain areas, but its not always the best choice.

It takes a much better undersatnding of the cliff to descend conveniently than it does to ascend. As my list of routes grows I keep finding better ways to descend the cliffs. Through this process of learning the cliff top I have undoubtedly descended via the stupid/inefficient ways plenty of times.

It seems that the mountainproject pages include alot more information on descents than has in the past. Interestingly enough, there is a mention that its best to avoid the baby tree for the bolts over City Lights.
Posted by: Welle

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 03:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeff D.
In my opinion, the source of this problem is that we have a 400 page guidebook that provides a plethora of routes up the wall, but no source for determining the best way to descend the cliff.


Grey Dick has all rappel stations clearly marked.

Originally Posted By: Jeff D.
Through this process of learning the cliff top I have undoubtedly descended via the stupid/inefficient ways plenty of times.


Isn't that an essential part of climbing? When I go to a new crag or big mountain, I undoubtedly expect to be figuring out ways to descend and getting lost/off-route a bit...
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 03:45 PM

Right on Welle! In my opinion the source of the problem has nothing to do with the guidebook and everything to do with the incessant modern demand for more convenience and efficiency.

Anyone can put a sling or a cable on a tree. Some of them are unsafe anchors. Others send the rappeller over areas of loose rock that shower stuff on people below. Many send the rappeller down on top of people climbing up. The guidebook shows the bolted rappel routes. You could hardly expect it to record the ever-shifting collection of anchors that appear, deteriorate, disappear, and are replaced.

Of course, the ability to find descents increases with experience. What is so terrible about the idea that experience is something that is acquired over time by actually indulging in the "not enjoyable" process of exploring? Isn't dealing with the (very slightly) unknown a part of trad climbing? Or does trad climbing begin when you step off the ground and end when you top out?

Finally, what is so terrible about walking back if the party is apprehensive about where to rap? So what if it "isn't best." Exactly how bad is it, considering that all parties walked back from all climbs (either to the Uberfall or Roger's Escape Hatch) for 40 years or so?

As an aside, isn't it a really good idea to know how to walk back just in case things go wrong in some way? (Some folks called out a rescue a while back because they were "stuck" on top at dark!) Walking back is arguably the first thing new parties should do just so they know how to do it in an "emergency."

On another subject, if the guides are placing the cables (and I want to emphasize that I have no idea whether or not they are), it would be another in a long list of examples of commercial interests shaping the nature of the climbing environment for their own purposes. First they create new impacts (which are proportional to the fees they collect), and then they "solve" the problems they created by adding bolts, cables(?), fixed pitons, and other things that eat away at the natural state of the crag.

Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 06:17 PM

I agree with Rich... finding your way down at the gunks is not all that hard. It is a generally flat cliff so you can just look sideways and pretty easily pick out a line of trees/ledges that will get you down. I can't imagine there are spots where you can't rap down a few route left or right of whereever you are. Sure finding the "Best" way down takes some learning but same could be said for taking certain trails to different crags at other places.

As far as walking along the top.. if you are nervous then stay on belay.. walk with a line of trees between you and the edge and if it is sketchy then sling one if you need to.


on topic-ish there was a cord around the Nice Crack Climb tree without a biner, ring, or maillion on it.. what's the point other than to have a TR anchor? the walk off is like 15 feet.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 06:52 PM

The walk off was always a pleasant way to finish a climb, let the arms rest a bit, socialize with other folks along the way, sort the gear as you walked. I even remember watching jstan coil his rope as he jogged back across the top with one partner or another (those who could keep up).

The one thing missing from the walk back is that convenient tree just above the ube, placed so well for one to grab as you jumped (or carefully stepped) down to that ledge. I suppose it finally gave in to all the manhandling.

Possibly what might help around the ube is a moratorium on rapping anywhere between the first rap station and the Keyhole buttress. And, clean out any of those unnecessary cable anchors within that zone as well.
Posted by: Jeff D.

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 07:22 PM

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
In my opinion the source of the problem has nothing to do with the guidebook and everything to do with the incessant modern demand for more convenience and efficiency.


If by "demand for convenience and efficiency" you you mean trying to limit the incessant clusterfucking, knocking down rocks, throwing ropes on highly trafficed routes, and yelling that characterizes the Trapps experience on a weekend day, then I will say that I am a proponent. I hardly feel the need to defend myself for wanting to be courteous and considerate of my fellow climbers and help them be the same for others.

I can control my actions, and you can control yours, but without an effort to help others make better decisions our collective experience suffers. I can walk off Baby all I want, but that doesnt mean other people will show the same courtesy on a busy day. I think being a propropent of the next best option is pragmatic rather than assuming everyone is going to walk off because its best.

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
What is so terrible about the idea that experience is something that is acquired over time by actually indulging in the "not enjoyable" process of exploring? Isn't dealing with the (very slightly) unknown a part of trad climbing?


You are making assumptions about what argument you think I am making or represent rather than what I said. I'm just of the opinion that there are improvements to the collective experience. They dont require new anchors and can be achieved through more transparent discussions of descent options. It seems you feel the need to set yourself in contrast to my comments, but I am at a loss for how they contradict.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 07:47 PM

"I think being a propropent of the next best option"

what does this mean? Most tree rap anchors are going to be on a route some more popular than others. all of the bolted rap lines are on fairly popular routes except High E. the "best" option changes on a route by route basis. It is best to look in the book, understand where you are and keep your eyes open on the way up.

what improvements do you want? the guidebook to have rap suggestions? won't happen other than what is already there. Look at mountain project or ask people at the cliff for suggestions if you need more info than that.

team up with another group going down to make it quicker. Hell even on a friday we teamed up with another group to have a full rope length and got off with 2 raps instead of 3.
Posted by: tradjunkie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 08:10 PM

Originally Posted By: jakedatc
team up with another group going down to make it quicker. Hell even on a friday we teamed up with another group to have a full rope length and got off with 2 raps instead of 3.


You know, you bring up a great point that I've often wondered about. IS it actually faster to team up like that? Or is it a wash? Anybody want to walk me/us through where the time gets saved? Math or otherwise?
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 08:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeff D.
If by "demand for convenience and efficiency" you you mean trying to limit the incessant clusterfucking, knocking down rocks, throwing ropes on highly trafficed routes, and yelling that characterizes the Trapps experience on a weekend day, then I will say that I am a proponent. I hardly feel the need to defend myself for wanting to be courteous and considerate of my fellow climbers and help them be the same for others.


No, neither you nor anyone else have to defend yourself for that. Only thing is, you never mentioned it in your original post, and the only criteria you specifically state is convenience, as in

Quote:
I do not enjoy walking the cliff edge unroped searching for other anchors which may or may not be more convenient descents, with no real easy way to determine that from the top.


Quote:
I can control my actions, and you can control yours, but without an effort to help others make better decisions our collective experience suffers.


This is true enough as far as it goes, but your "solution" was to blame the guidebook. Perhaps Julie will start a MP section entitled Getting Down from the Trapps?

Quote:
You are making assumptions about what argument you think I am making or represent rather than what I said...It seems you feel the need to set yourself in contrast to my comments, but I am at a loss for how they contradict.


Other people reached the same conclusions I did. We can only react to what you wrote, and you didn't convey what you now say you actually meant.

Quote:
I'm just of the opinion that there are improvements to the collective experience. They don't require new anchors and can be achieved through more transparent discussions of descent options.


This sounds good, although I'm afraid I don't know what it means. Is the problem that descent options are now discussed in a way that obscures things and "transparency" is the solution? Perhaps you could give an example of such an obscure discussion and then indicate the appropriately "transparent" response?

One of the problems, in my opinion, is that the Preserve is only batting around .500 in placing bolted rap descents. The Jackie, City Lights, Ribs, and Arrow ones go over really busy sections, and the Kama Sutra one doesn't start at the top of the cliff. Three Pines, Northern Pillar, Last Will Be First, and High E ones are better.

Not all of these are so easily found from the top either, although I think the process of searching them out is kinda fun in itself and is part of being a trad climber.

Another issue is that if people really started to use these routes to the exclusion of all the other set-ups, there would be a lot more traffic at the top, and the current lack of such traffic is continually cited as a benefit of the modern rap proclivity.

As usual, there don't seem to be any easy answers.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 08:33 PM

Originally Posted By: tradjunkie
Originally Posted By: jakedatc
team up with another group going down to make it quicker. Hell even on a friday we teamed up with another group to have a full rope length and got off with 2 raps instead of 3.


You know, you bring up a great point that I've often wondered about. IS it actually faster to team up like that? Or is it a wash? Anybody want to walk me/us through where the time gets saved? Math or otherwise?



I think as long as you're with another pair that is efficient or can be taught real quick to be efficient then it is faster. send the first one down.. have them already putting the pull end of the rope through the next rings.. 2,3,4th down start pulling once they are off. I think overall it speeds things up because you don't have to worry about dropping another rope on the first party and i think most people would prefer to do a 60m rap over multiple 30m.

I had a plan the other day to make it even faster but i got shot down.. on the 2nd rap we only needed a single rope to get down so I wanted to rap on the extra rope Fig 8's to the anchor and then have the last person down drop that rope. It made sense to me but we weren't really in a hurry. but in the rain i would have been on that in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Jeff D.

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 08:39 PM

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
This is true enough as far as it goes, but your "solution" was to blame the guidebook. Perhaps Julie will start a MP section entitled Getting Down from the Trapps?


Wording aside, my point was that there seems always a wealth of information about ways of ascending, and limited amounts for descending. As long as you don't lead into the party ahead of you, it seems to me that you have little effect on others when ascending. However, descending has safety and convenience impacts on others.

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc

Other people reached the same conclusions I did. We can only react to what you wrote, and you didn't convey what you now say you actually meant.


Fair enough.

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
This sounds good, although I'm afraid I don't know what it means. Is the problem that descent options are now discussed in a way that obscures things and "transparency" is the solution? Perhaps you could give an example of such an obscure discussion and then indicate the appropriately "transparent" response?


I just think that rather than having people default to rappping off the Baby tree when another party is closely following and there are two parties already sharing the anchor below, it would be nice if people were aware of other options. Specifically, I feel like people see a rap anchor and feel obligated to go right back down. Maybe its naive that I hoped it was from lacking the knowledge of the alternatives.

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
As usual, there don't seem to be any easy answers.


As usual!
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/18/11 08:40 PM

TradJ, teaming up will often make the total time expended for everyone less, because

(1) If each party only has a single ropes, then they can combine their ropes and often reach the ground from the top in one rap with no need for intermediate stations.

(2) If everyone uses the same ropes, then the time used to tie the knots, throw the ropes, untangle the ropes when they hang up, and pull the ropes is only expended once in total, rather than once for each party.

However, even if the total time is reduced, the first party to the station has to wait while the others use their ropes. Depending on the other parties. This would make it either a wash or a loss of time for the first party.

Less experienced parties can take a long time to get on rappel and start descending, and their rate of descent can be agonizingly slow. Joining up with such folks can seem like an example of no good deed going unpunished, but in addition to being courteous, it may actually make the process a little safer for those who are just learning.
Posted by: Coppertone

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/19/11 03:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Welle


Isn't that an essential part of climbing? When I go to a new crag or big mountain, I undoubtedly expect to be figuring out ways to descend and getting lost/off-route a bit...


I completely agree. I have had countless walkoffs and descents in Red Rocks in the dark, often getting lost, but ultimately always finding my way back. Its part of the adventure of climbing. If you want the fastest and most efficient way down everytime go someplace that has elevators and escalators. You can't climb by a watch. If you have people with you and worry about them getting down then go to a gym.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/19/11 03:43 AM

Guys and Gals: Go back to the original post of this thread and then please take your debate elsewhere. This is a thread for updates on anchor conditions. Please report which anchors need work, what kind of work you have done, and what kind of work you noticed someone else doing.

This thread is turning into a microcosm of American politics: lots of talking, not too much doing.

D. Lucander
Posted by: tradjunkie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/19/11 04:37 AM

Thanks Dave. Perhaps then better to rename the thread: Anchor Updates and Status Reports.

'wish lists' will bring in the element of, well, what people want, which is far messier.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/19/11 02:32 PM

Sorry, Dave, just one more comment, and that comment is aimed at bringing the focus back down to the level of individual anchors ....

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
Originally Posted By: Jeff D.
I can control my actions, and you can control yours, but without an effort to help others make better decisions our collective experience suffers.


This is true enough as far as it goes, but your "solution" was to blame the guidebook. Perhaps Julie will start a MP section entitled Getting Down from the Trapps?


When I subdivided the Trapps section on MP, one of the goals was to use each new Area page to give an overview of descent options - to help others make better decisions. It sounds like at least Jeff found that useful.

We cannot solve the global problem(s), there is no such thing as consensus, and wringing hands about "kids these days" ain't gonna help, either.

All's I'm saying is: if you're going to chop Betty's or Baby's anchor in the name of greater good - consider DOING something (different!) to communicate options to folks as they arrive at a naked tree. Not on an all-anchors-everywhere basis, but on an as-needed basis. Like, at the Baby tree. Especially if you happen to have access to a laminating machine ....

Someone wiser than me once said: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Now, back to individual anchors, I hope I'll get to Ursula this weekend. What's the new descent from Harvest Moon, now?
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/19/11 05:13 PM

Hahaha---everyone is going to want a last word! Here are my parting comments, after which I'm removing myself from this thread as an obviously subversive influence.

(1) I tried to convince Evan to create a spreadsheet-style database of anchors and fixed pro status several years ago. He never did anything with it. Maybe the answer is to host it somewhere else like MP, where Julie is actively involved in providing good information.

(2) I seriously doubt a narrative format like this can or should be kept "on topic." As for the political analogy, we can't expect to solve our political problems by just doing things without discussing the merits and drawbacks of the actions and the same is true for anchors.

(3) Julie's point about the need for better descent information if anchors are eliminated makes sense, but decorating trees and other former anchor locations with mini route cards directing folks to better options doesn't seem to me like the way to go. I have a few ideas but this is apparently not the place for such discussions.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/19/11 05:23 PM

Kind of funny to see an actual debate of interest on a gunks.com thread-- and then the thread police show up to shut it down! It wasn't even really off-topic imho, rather a natural evolution of the topic.

What a waste.
Posted by: Welle

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/19/11 05:46 PM

ditto. thread branch out?
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/19/11 07:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Julie

Now, back to individual anchors, I hope I'll get to Ursula this weekend. What's the new descent from Harvest Moon, now?


Get off by doing it the old eco-conscious way like Sir Goldstone by down climbing the low fifth-classish gully to the left of the block or by belaying up top and rapping the Hang Ten tree. This tree is remarkable similar to the Harvest Moon tree - it's not going to last a while.

I don't say this often, but the top of the block is a good spot for a bolted anchor for use descending Hang Ten, Harvest Moon and (if anyone does it) Mincer.

D. Lucander
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/20/11 11:52 PM

I would agree dave. If Mainline has a bolted anchor, then surely Harvest Moon, Hang Ten, etc could use one.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/21/11 12:57 AM

Mainline anchor...worst travesty in Gunks bolting program...must...keep...promise...to...shut up...arrrRRRGH!
Posted by: schwortz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/21/11 01:35 AM

that is a pretty lame spot for a bolted anchor.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/22/11 01:07 PM

Indeed. If one of the premises of the bolted anchor program is to reduce damage to the trees at the tops of climbs, this one fails miserably. They put bolts in next to a perfect gear anchor, and did not put bolts in on top, causing people who want to rap to still have to do it off the tree!


DUHHH!!!


Back onto the topic. I noticed yesterday that people are using the shrub/tree down and to the right of the last pitch of Shockley's, and to the left of the last pitch belay for Grim Ace Face. While the anchor material looked reasonable, the whole set up seems a little sketch to me. bad position, scrawny tree, etc. The only reason I can see that thing being there is for people bailing off of Grim Ace Face and not wanting to traverse over to the top of Shockley's or Shockley's without.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/22/11 04:27 AM

Noticed this afternoon that both anchors on Son of a Bitchy Virgin are in old shape, lots of manky webbing. Put this one on the list for things that need work. Both anchor/rappel points only need webbing.

DL
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/28/11 03:29 PM

Anchor on P1 of Triangle needs new webbing. I'll replace it next time when I'm on that route.
Posted by: fotovult

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/28/11 07:12 PM

Nice job on Laughing Man - rap anchor is much better than it was last season...
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/29/11 02:55 AM

fotovult - thanks for the update, sounds like the Laughing Man anchor has lasted almost two months so far!

In sum, the current "work list" has Triangle & Son of a Bitchy Virgin - bot of which only need webbing.

DL
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 07/06/11 01:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
Noticed this afternoon that both anchors on Son of a Bitchy Virgin are in old shape, lots of manky webbing. Put this one on the list for things that need work. Both anchor/rappel points only need webbing.

DL


I brought webbing with me when I did Immaculate/Son of Bitchy Virgin last week-- some new-looking red webbing had already been added at both rap stations. There was also a newish looking cordalette that had been added at the GT Ledge station. But the red webbing and the cordalette at this station each only went around isolated branches of the multi-forked tree, so I added another piece of tan webbing that went around the whole base of the tree and cut away some of the old stuff.

That tree has seen better days, IMO. Some branches are dead/dying. It bears watching.

Also yesterday my partner added webbing to the tree atop The Main Line. Our new webbing is black, all the rest looked pretty old. We cut away several of the oldest pieces of webbing.
Posted by: tradjunkie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 07/06/11 02:11 PM

Interplanetary Agents is awful sun-bleached, though probably fairly low on the priority list.
Posted by: RobA

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 07/13/11 01:42 AM

FYI: sun bleached old-ass rope on top of finger locks was replaced today
Posted by: eparker_s

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 07/13/11 02:29 PM

Triangle got a newish piece of (yellow) webb a couple weeks back, no knife to take out the old stuff. Also, the anchor on top of P2 of Feast of Fools, anyone want to lug up a wrench and try and take that thing off? Its bomber, but will surely kill the tree given enough time. Actually, I'm not sure, I'm no arborist!
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 07/13/11 04:39 PM

Good job, community!
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/19/11 12:55 PM

Anchor atop The Nose (shared with Filipina, Boldville, and Quien Sabe) is in better shape these days.

DL
Posted by: PAF

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/19/11 02:52 PM

Many thanks to the gunks climber who replaced the anchors on El Camino in the Nears and also the nice new steel cable anchors on the Alphonse rap. Very nice job and shiny new steel links on both.
Posted by: Welle

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/19/11 03:14 PM

Originally Posted By: PAF
Many thanks to the gunks climber who replaced the anchors on El Camino in the Nears and also the nice new steel cable anchors on the Alphonse rap. Very nice job and shiny new steel links on both.


IMHO, Alphonse does not need rap rings - it's very close to walk off and it encourages needless rappeling and top roping in a busy area...
Posted by: Doug

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/21/11 11:41 PM

I hadn't been on it to see in person until today, but man that Betty anchor looks terrible. One end of the cable is pretty frayed good for poking things. I'm also not convinced a little nylon padding helps the tree much anyway when people are weighting the cable.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/22/11 03:37 AM

Maybe I'm OT, but I don't like those steel cable anchors at all. Tubular webbing is (1) cheap, (2) easy to install, (3) easy to inspect, (4) there is enough of us to maintain/remove crusty sun-bleached stuff, (5) can be removed and replaced if it actually sticks around long enough for the tree's growth to catch up with it.

Now, about having a rap-line on Betty or Alphonse...that one is too OT for me to take up.

DL
Posted by: PAF

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/22/11 11:36 PM


Needless rapelling? It is a way to get down from the cliff quickly. There has been an anchor around this tree for the last 20+ years so there is nothing new here. People use this rappel regularly and are used to it. Does that make it a bad thing? If there were not a cable here, there would be a tangled mess of webbing that looks like shit and very few bother to clean up. I personally like having it there and am grateful to the person who replaced the sketchy setup that was looking a little aged.
Posted by: tls

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/23/11 12:40 AM

Rappelling from points on the cliff that could be easily walked-off is a Very Bad Thing. In fact, anything that has us stomping around the already-all-too-compacted soil at the base of the dwindling number of the traditional rap trees is a Very Bad Thing -- which means some of the existing bolted anchors are quite poorly placed. The number of trees that have died and fallen off popular Gunks ledges in the past 10 years is large. Soil compaction is a likely culprit. We should all try to encourage _less_ rappelling where the rap involves any stomping on or near trees on (or at the top edge of) the cliff -- not more.

I have wondered from time to time if careful hand aeration of the soil around some of the tree roots might offer any benefit; but there's no point even trying while people are still walking there. I really think there are a number of areas at and around old rap stations that climbers or the Preserve should rope off (other anchors are almost always available) to try to let the trees recover before they take the plunge.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/23/11 05:07 PM

Originally Posted By: PAF
Needless rapelling? It is a way to get down from the cliff quickly.

More and more, it is turning out to be a way to get down the cliff too quickly. Since the proliferation of rappel anchors, there has been an explosion of rap accidents, including very experienced climbers.

In the case of Betty, it is questionable whether there are, in general, any significant speed advantages.

Moreover, rappellers get themselves tangled up with ascending climbers, often create unpleasant clusterfucks, and drop ropes and pebbles, if not larger things, on leaders. The Preserve, after failing to think through its bolting policies, learned fairly quickly to set up rap lines that did not go down routes. Betty is a popular route for beginners and has got to be one of the worst imaginable places to have a rap route.

Quote:
There has been an anchor around this tree for the last 20+ years so there is nothing new here. People use this rappel regularly and are used to it.

None of this makes it any less poorly conceived and undesirable.

Quote:
Does that make it a bad thing? If there were not a cable here, there would be a tangled mess of webbing that looks like shit and very few bother to clean up.

I think the cable is actually an attractive nuisance. It encourages people to rappel back down the route, people who might have at least thought clearly for a moment about it if there had been webbing.

Cables give the illusion of safety, but we know nothing of the competence of the installer and can be fairly certain that once installed, no one is looking out for the integrity of the system or thinking about the kind of periodic replacement that such installations require. Indeed, who knows how to judge the integrity of cables?

Climbers understand how to inspect webbing, and if it gets messy, all it takes is a knife to clean it up.

Quote:
I personally like having it there and am grateful to the person who replaced the sketchy setup that was looking a little aged.

I personally thought about cutting it down, but found that I neither had nor wanted to purchase the necessary tools. I was concerned that less expensive ad hoc methods might fail, leaving a weakened installation, which would surely be the absolute worst possible outcome.

There should not be a cable rap anchor directly above an extremely busy beginner's route.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/24/11 02:02 AM

Last Frontier: anchor was missing, someone cut it. I was pissed because I worked this anchor during Spring 2011. There is now new single 1" tubular webbing anchor and two rap rings.

DL
Posted by: Coppertone

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/24/11 03:49 AM

Better you than me on Last Frontier. Did that years back and was happy to get it and be done. Definitely intimidating, especially if your not used to that type of climbing.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/24/11 04:17 PM

Hey folks, two questions on anchors that I'm unable to verify:

a) Criss Cross Direct. A new report says the anchor there is now "fine", but Dave (Luc.) had previously reported it as "now only a couple of nuts all facing for a leftward pull and "equalized" with a cold shut. Pitons and some of the nuts are gone.". Can someone verify that it's improved from this state, & specify the improvements? New hardware?

b) Snooky's (yes, it's killing me to have to ask!) - "Minty P2 and Snooky's Return P3 trees are dead and webbing and rings are no longer on them.". Can anyone verify this, or the current state of things up there?

Tx.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/25/11 02:32 AM

Not sure about the pitch counts in (b) (and sorry you can't go up there and check for yourself just yet). I suspect you mean Minty P3 and Snooky's P2. The tree at the top of what I would call either P1 or P2 of Snooky's (depending on whether or not you belay at the bolts) has been inadequate for a while, and I think most people who do not go all the way to the top are walking over to the tree at the top of Tipsy Trees, which was ok earlier this season but which will eventually be killed by climber-induced soil compaction and erosion, as so many Trapps trees have been.
Posted by: KathyS

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/25/11 12:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Julie
Hey folks, two questions on anchors that I'm unable to verify:

a) Criss Cross Direct. A new report says the anchor there is now "fine", but Dave (Luc.) had previously reported it as "now only a couple of nuts all facing for a leftward pull and "equalized" with a cold shut. Pitons and some of the nuts are gone.". Can someone verify that it's improved from this state, & specify the improvements? New hardware?

b) Snooky's (yes, it's killing me to have to ask!) - "Minty P2 and Snooky's Return P3 trees are dead and webbing and rings are no longer on them.". Can anyone verify this, or the current state of things up there?

Tx.


If memory serves, last time I was up Minty, there was barely a trace of the tree that used to be there.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/06/11 12:48 AM

Silly Chimney Rappel line update: old tight old webbing (choking tree?), it's been replaced with new material.
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/06/11 01:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
Silly Chimney Rappel line update: old tight old webbing (choking tree?), it's been replaced with new material.

Silly Chimney needs a rap anchor?? WTF????? Aren't you guys supposed to be climbers? There are descents in the Tetons, Yosemite, and all over the world that are far more hairball than SC.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/06/11 02:07 AM

True. Generations of climbers soloed down Silly Chimney. But solidity on easy ground, nowadays the mark of someone with mountaineering experience, is no longer a given for all climbers.

Many now learn to climb hard without ever climbing easy, and many never actually climb down anything, and so there is now a significant group with no experience in unroped scrambling or unprotected 4th class leading.

Rappelling looks safer to these folks, and maybe it is, in spite of all the accidents involving bad anchors and uneven ropes that have replaced years of almost entirely incident-free soloing.

It doesn't seem possible that unroped downclimbing could really be safer than rappelling. Perhaps the distinction is that the unroped climber attends fully to the task at hand, whereas the rappeller, engaged in an activity that is as unforgiving as soloing, but has become routine and apparently trivial, is more likely to have a momentary lapse of attention.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/06/11 12:35 PM

For what it's worth, there was moldy webbing on Silly Chimney when I started climbing at the Gunks in 2005. I'm no forensics expert, but I'd bet that this rap line has been there all millennium. It's a nice way to get to the ground in one rappel from Double Crack, Airy Aria, Bonnie's Roof, and Ursula.

DL
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/06/11 04:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
For what it's worth, there was moldy webbing on Silly Chimney when I started climbing at the Gunks in 2005. I'm no forensics expert, but I'd bet that this rap line has been there all millennium. It's a nice way to get to the ground in one rappel descend without bothering with any rappelling from Double Crack, Airy Aria, Bonnie's Roof, and Ursula.

There was no anchor there in the 70's, 80's or 90's. And I fixed your quote for you.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/06/11 04:47 PM

Thanks for correcting me, Retro. You might be interested in knowing about a really neat device called the ATC. It makes rappelling without a thick wool coat that the dulfersitz body rap necessitated quite pleasant. Check out a newer version of this apparatus at <http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en-us/shop/climb/belay-rappel/atc-belay-rappel-device>

DL
Posted by: tradjunkie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/06/11 06:44 PM

Even newer than the ATC is the 2004 guidebook, which gives 3 stars to a 5.5 nearby and 2 stars to a 5.6 nearby. This was not the case for the guidebooks in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

I can not place the timing of the trend from walking off to rapping off but I imagine it coincided roughly with the placement of bolted rap anchors circa 2000, which accelerated the loss of downclimbing skills among new climbers, as well as shifting the trend for those uncomfortable downsoloing with 150' of air from using walkoffs (down Roger's) to raps, and from walking 3 minutes to a rap (High E) to looking for a rap within 50 yards.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/21/11 03:36 AM

Added a quicklink to the fixed nut on Bonnies P1 anchor so it could be used with the thread. The thread needs some newer webbing i think.
Posted by: core

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/21/11 02:50 PM

Jake, I don't understand the advantage to having a quicklink fixed to the nut when you can clip a carabiner to it if you want to use it and remove the carabiner when you are done. I haven't been up there in a couple years though.
Posted by: wonderwoman

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/21/11 03:18 PM

Maybe he is suggesting threading the quicklink so that it can be included in the anchor for the purpose of rappelling? But I've never seen anybody rappel from there.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/21/11 04:21 PM

Originally Posted By: tradjunkie

I can not place the timing of the trend from walking off to rapping off but I imagine it coincided roughly with the placement of bolted rap anchors circa 2000, which accelerated the loss of downclimbing skills among new climbers, as well as shifting the trend for those uncomfortable downsoloing with 150' of air from using walkoffs (down Roger's) to raps, and from walking 3 minutes to a rap (High E) to looking for a rap within 50 yards.


The bolted rap anchors, for the most part, replaced makeshift anchors already quite established. The bolts accelerated trends like top-roping and the "single-pitching" of formerly multipitch climbs, but rapping rather than walking or downclimbing was well-established before the bolts, although it too became even more common once the bolts were in.

My theory is that the real impetus for rap descents was the banning of parking on 44-55. It used to be easy to return to your car in between climbs by walking back to the Uberfall. Hardly anyone carried a pack of gear to the base of anything. The removal of parking to remote locations made it necessary to carry your stuff to the base, and once that happened, returning to the base as quickly and efficiently as possible made rapping the method of choice.
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/21/11 05:15 PM

You are on the mark, RG. I might have carried water with me but always brought it up the climb. Likewise we almost always carried a pair of shoes to walk back down and on to the car for lunch or liquid refreshment. We never brought more than a candy bar to the cliffs when we could park closer.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/22/11 12:36 AM

Originally Posted By: wonderwoman
Maybe he is suggesting threading the quicklink so that it can be included in the anchor for the purpose of rappelling? But I've never seen anybody rappel from there.


Yep, Had to rap off since my partner could not pull the P1 crux roof and then fell into space and had to be lowered to the ground.

There is a mid point anchor since a 60m won't make it to the ground also. It had one newer piece of webbing on it though.
Posted by: curmudgeon

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/22/11 01:49 AM

Is this your partner?

Posted by: wonderwoman

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/22/11 01:55 AM

He needs to learn the art of prussicking!
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/22/11 02:52 AM

Yep or to call for slack if the rope is pulling him out of the corner. a lot easier to give out slack before falling. or to evaluate your climbing level better since someone who 'can follow .8-9 and maybe more" should not fall on P1 bonnies. especially since after that he A0'd following Columbia and about pumped out following MG's

Curmudgeon if you were part of the guys who helped him get back to the rock Thanks.
Posted by: wonderwoman

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/22/11 01:07 PM

Even the best of belayers can pull their partners off the rock. I found myself hanging in space this weekend under those circumstances (however the climb was more meandering & we were using doubles), and prusickked my way back onto the rock. Regardless of how hard this guy says he can climb, prussicking is a basic skill.

Still - sucks that he was left dangling! Hope you guys had a great time anyway.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/22/11 11:06 PM

No c in the word prussik.
Posted by: BrianRI

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/23/11 01:04 AM

Originally Posted By: RangerRob
No c in the word prussik.


And there is only one "s" in prusik. It is named after Dr. Karl Prusik.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prusik
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/23/11 12:52 PM

RR, you been hangin with Smike too long?
Posted by: wonderwoman

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/23/11 04:20 PM

Originally Posted By: RangerRob
No c in the word prussik.


Apparently, neither of us can spell.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/23/11 04:45 PM

Nice.....I got a laugh out of that. I try to be the Spelling Police and I get the smackdown....gotta love it smile
Posted by: Welle

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/23/11 07:14 PM

That is quite ways to go prusiking - anyone who's done it knows that prusiks are only good in theory. Either carry a gri-gri 2 or some sort of mechanical ascender (WC Ropeman is small and light), or the leader could've helped - there seems to be enough rope to throw a biner down to do an assisted raise.
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/23/11 07:20 PM

The slow, sickening spin of an all prusik free hanging rope ascent only counts if you go at least a half rope length. Less than that just doesn't get your money's worth.
Having fallen out of a couple of big bombay chimneys and off a big overhanging face has led me to carry a Tibloc all the time. It really makes the whole thing a lot easier and makes setting up a haul for the second a piece of cake with an auto-block.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/23/11 09:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Welle
That is quite ways to go prusiking - anyone who's done it knows that prusiks are only good in theory. Either carry a gri-gri 2 or some sort of mechanical ascender (WC Ropeman is small and light), or the leader could've helped - there seems to be enough rope to throw a biner down to do an assisted raise.


I tried to ask that (lower my rope) after I couldn't get the ATC unlocked and was quickly told "no, i'm waiting for them to come up" he did not want to hear any more. So, since i was on a quite comfortable ledge and he was the one hanging I said whatever you want.
Posted by: Mark Heyman

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/24/11 04:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Welle
That is quite ways to go prusiking - anyone who's done it knows that prusiks are only good in theory. Either carry a gri-gri 2 or some sort of mechanical ascender (WC Ropeman is small and light)...


A Ropeman is 5 1/2 oz? Guess theyre appropriate if you think your really going for multiple long jugs, but how often would (do) you do that? Do you carry two of them? Id recommend a knot variation like the Klemheist before I started carrying mechanical devices heavier than a TiBloc.
Posted by: whatthegunks

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/24/11 07:03 PM

The prusik is a thing not action. It is a type of friction hitch that can be used to ascend a rope amongst other uses. Though a foot or so of skinny cord tied in a loop is often referred to as a prusik, it is not (until it is). That piece of cord can be used to make a prusik as well as other friction hitches like a bachman, klemheist or autoblock. I like to refer to the skinny cord I carry as a rescue loop, just to keep my options open.

Climbing the rope with a pair of friction hitches is hard work but actually works great, is more than just "good in theory". It takes practice and some real fitness to master but is totally cool to do and incredibly handy to have in your bag of tricks. If you are going to climb a long ways up a fixed line consider tying hard knots (eight or overhand on bight) below the hitches every 3 or so meters and clipping into your harness so that if those skinny cords fail you won't fall all the way back to where you started. A clove hitch works well too.

If you want some instruction on friction hitches and other tricks consider coming to the FREE clinic I am doing before the 13th Annual Climbing Film Festival on October 8th @ 5:30 in the Uberfall (movies are in town). Even if you don't want instruction stop by and say hello as I have done these things for years now and the turn out is generally kinda weak.

Did I mention that it's free?
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/24/11 07:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Welle
That is quite ways to go prusiking - anyone who's done it knows that prusiks are only good in theory.

Not true at all. They are quite effective and workable, and super light to carry. Recall the number of big walls that were done with prusiks on the FA.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/24/11 08:49 PM

Retro is right; folks used to prusik thousands of feet. Beckey showing how its done on the East Face of Snowpatch Spire, 1959.



Being efficient is mostly a matter of knowing how to set up the right length slings.

I think the real issue in all this is the stupid "guide" plates. First they pull you off and then they lock up and can't be released. I hate those things.
Posted by: Welle

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/25/11 02:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark Heyman
Do you carry two of them? Id recommend a knot variation like the Klemheist before I started carrying mechanical devices heavier than a TiBloc.

You only need 1 and still use a cord/sling for the second one. Now lighter Gri Gri 2 are actually pretty nice to carry on multi-pitch climbs (not in the mountains of course, but at a crag).

Originally Posted By: retroscree

Not true at all. They are quite effective and workable, and super light to carry. Recall the number of big walls that were done with prusiks on the FA.

Have you prusiked on a wet rope in a rain or on iced up rope?

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc

Being efficient is mostly a matter of knowing how to set up the right length slings.

True. I also find that I have to readjust the number of wraps on my autoblock (for rappels) depending on how skinny/fat the rope is (I'm used to skinny so I tend to overwrap) I suspect that would be the case for ascending too, then you'll have to readjust the length of the foot sling too, no?
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/25/11 04:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Welle
Originally Posted By: retroscree

Not true at all. They are quite effective and workable, and super light to carry. Recall the number of big walls that were done with prusiks on the FA.

Have you prusiked on a wet rope in a rain or on iced up rope?

Wet, yes - an extra wrap can make them work if they're slipping. Iced up? No - hell, that can be just as problematic with Jumars or other mechanical ascenders, too.
Posted by: wonderwoman

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/25/11 04:43 PM

I would image that neither of those devices are likely to work on 9mm double ropes, which is what I normally use and have had to ascend. And come to think of it, I don't use a prusik. I use a klemheist, which is even harder to spell.

So, I 'klemheisted' after I got pulled off the second pitch of a climb last weekend. grin

I'm inventing my own climbing terminology as we go along.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/25/11 09:42 PM

I think the key to effective improvised prusiking is to have whatever is hitched to your harness able to move up instantly and grab. So on the harness I'd use a gri-gri (but this won't work for prusiking up rappel ropes), one of the the %$#@&ing guide plates I just hated on above, or, my favorite, the misnamed Garda hitch, better-named the alpine clutch, fabricated from a pair of carabiners.

Hanging from your harness, you can comfortably futz with whatever knot you are using for the foot loop and move it up. As you step up, you haul rope through whatever you are using as a clutch and you are instantly stable and hands-free at your next position.

To use this system with the Garda, you have to have two nice-sized lockers, which almost everyone has on them nowadays, a prusik knot cord, which most climbers also have for a rappel backup, and enough slingage (say three over-the-shoulder runners) to arrange a foot loop. This last item can be the rub; it isn't unusual to see a second starting up a pitch without anything that could be used as a foot loop. Of course, if the party is using cordelettes, there is no problem.

In almost everyone's hands, I find guide plates provide a very inferior belay for seconds who want to climb the pitch without being pulled, not to mention the fact that the plates encourage belayer inattention. (Eat your lunch while belaying! Change clothes! Zone out until your second takes a legitimate leader fall from all the slack you've left!) Unlocking a guide plate when the second is hanging free can be very difficult. In some cases, if the plate is pulled against the rock in certain ways, its ability to tilt may be blocked off and unlocking will not be possible, and then a full-on belay escape is the only option for lowering.

The devices are a solution to a problem that didn't exist. But more and more climbers are learning outdoor climbing while belayed by these plates, and so don't even know what a good belay is like. They expect to end up on tension if they step down, and accept the idea that if they have to reverse lateral or diagonal moves, they are likely to be pulled off.

Wonderwoman, if you are going to prusik up double ropes after a belayed fall, it makes more sense to prusik on just one strand and be belayed with the other strand. That way you don't have to tie back-up knots in the rope to protect yourself in case the prusiking system fails in some way.
Posted by: wonderwoman

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/26/11 12:07 AM

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
Wonderwoman, if you are going to prusik up double ropes after a belayed fall, it makes more sense to prusik on just one strand and be belayed with the other strand. That way you don't have to tie back-up knots in the rope to protect yourself in case the prusiking system fails in some way.


That's exactly what I did. I ascended the rope that was clipped into the next piece of gear, while my belayer took up on the other rope. I didn't have to go far to get back on the rock, thank god. But there have been instances where I've had to prusik for longer than I would have liked. It's tiring. It wouldn't make any sense to try to ascend both ropes, especially when they were going in different directions. Unfortunately, I am not a prusik n00b.
Posted by: wonderwoman

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/07/11 06:05 PM

Originally Posted By: jakedatc
Originally Posted By: wonderwoman
Maybe he is suggesting threading the quicklink so that it can be included in the anchor for the purpose of rappelling? But I've never seen anybody rappel from there.


Yep, Had to rap off since my partner could not pull the P1 crux roof and then fell into space and had to be lowered to the ground.

There is a mid point anchor since a 60m won't make it to the ground also. It had one newer piece of webbing on it though.


About that mid point anchor. Apparently the quick link won't do you any good anymore:
http://www.gunks.com/home/bonnies-roof-rappel-unsafe/#comments
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/07/11 10:36 PM

Apparently, the Erect Direction hanging belay anchor has reappeared. Convenience anchors are like unwanted fire rings, they just keep getting rebuilt, no matter how many times you break em down.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/08/11 04:42 AM

I felt pretty damn happy to clip that anchor a few years ago...

On a related note, somebody fixed up the Balrog anchor: one nice piece of unobtrusive black webbing wrapped neatly around the tree, backed up with the same rusty ass nut a few feet behind and built into the system. Only one piece of nylon on the system, bring a back-up if it spooks you.

There's a useless runner on the GT above Arch, would have cut it but we were in a rush. Ties off a small leaning tree and encourages a ridiculous rappel when a chain station is less than 30" right.

Jean could use a 1-up on webbing. I had no tubular with me, but it would certainly be nice to have something from this millennium up there.

DL
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/14/11 10:35 AM

Broken Sling: The fixed mank up on p. 1 is looking pretty weird. A few of the nuts are just hanging there for the taking, bring a knife to cut them from the old webbing. Don't know who would use this thing, it's too high for the obvious belay stance. Maybe for doing the Direct finish?

D. Lucander
Posted by: edpav

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/15/11 05:56 PM

It makes a nice pro piece for the traverse, presumably avoiding the F2 onto the belay. Maybe it was too obvious, and it's easy to get a functionally equivalent piece in, or would one have to get all the way up there, then come back down????
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/15/11 06:37 PM

Whatever its use, the Broken Sling "anchor" presently consists of 5 nuts, two of which are dangling from old webbing.

DL
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/15/11 09:16 PM

Dave, people use that fixed mank in order to toprope the first pitch with no drag, and thereby avoiding the actual crux of the climb, which is P2. If you were going to do this in two pitches, why on earth would someone want to hang on a jingus anchor when there is a wonderful belay ledge 10 feet below?
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/15/11 09:57 PM

I really have no idea why that anchor is there. I'm afraid to hack it because Lynn Hill might kick my arse - saw her tr'ing off it a few years ago.

DL
Posted by: wombat

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/21/11 07:04 PM

that thing confused the heck out of me the first time up but i may not be too bright. great climb.

I cleaned some crap from right of PR/left of GrimAce P1. Crusty cord, rattly abused nut, a still fixed old friend and a small tree (still fixed as well)

couldnt really figure out why it was there. Glad someone got the day glow webbing from the tree left of Jane.

Why won't the Bonnie's Crap die! Zombie "anchors"
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/21/11 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: wombat

Why won't the Bonnie's Crap die! Zombie "anchors"


cuz
http://www.gunks.com/home/bonnies-roof-rappel-unsafe/

the midpoint up P1 needs to go away.. the crap on P1 belay isnt necessary either. The rap off Ursula is easier and safer.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/21/11 08:08 PM

The 2d pitch anchor on Falled on Account of Strain is pretty crappy. I refused to rap off of it. The resident pieces are a big rusty bong (probably fine), three old rusty pins (impossible to evaluate), and two equalized nuts, one of which has a cable that looks like it is close to rusted out.

If the gear were the only area of concern I think I would have used it but the slings/cord connecting the pieces are all old, stiff, and faded. If you go up there bring some new webbing or cord. I didn't have any with me.

We bushwhacked to the GT Ledge and descended from the Sticky Gate tree instead.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/21/11 08:13 PM

There was a note on MP today that the Last Frontier anchor is now gone.
Posted by: Mike Rawdon

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/21/11 10:32 PM

Can anyone justify the slings and rings on the first tree on RMC? If you rap from there, you haven't even done the crux. And if you get to the good ledge with the tree/slings higher up, one rap reaches the ground; no need to stop at the lower tree.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/21/11 10:43 PM

untie and reuse at least the rings somewhere?
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/22/11 03:25 AM

So...in sum:

Last Frontier's lower anchor is gone...again. Instead of the chockstone, the tree higher up after much easier climbing has a "new" anchor.

Obnoxious RMC/Jame anchor is alive and well

Falled on Account of Strain could use a little work (new webbing, remove old nut, add new nut)

Bring a knife up Bonnie's Roof

DL
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/22/11 04:57 AM

If anyone does Dry Heaves they should also bring a knife and some webbing.. that anchor was scary but it was dark and late when we got off so we just backed up the first rap and trusted it enough for a second.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/22/11 02:55 PM

Good on you for doing the second pitch, Jake. I think that anchor is scary because most people just do the first pitch of Alley Oop and Dry Heaves to the bolts. I am as guilty as anyone.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/22/11 03:10 PM

Bolts? we didn't see any bolts. perhaps that is why it was such a shitty anchor. like i said... it was dark. leader didnt have headlamp on lead.. i followed poorly with a headlamp on P1.. slipped on the traverse when a foot blew off the smears :P got past the roofs and traversed left to the tree with slings. only did P1.

nevermind then wink go to the bolts not the shitty tree anchor.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/22/11 04:12 PM

Oh, yeah, use the bolts next time! Maybe you used an anchor above Balrog/Bullfrog?
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/22/11 04:42 PM

Won't be a next time for me... it has no appeal to me at all.

must have been Balrog..we went right over that big roof on the way down.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/22/11 05:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon
Can anyone justify the slings and rings on the first tree on RMC?


This is a really good question, about one of the most visually apparent anchors out there.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/22/11 11:30 PM

JakeDatc - sounds like you hit the Bullfrog anchor, as Balrog is waaaaaaaaay left of Dry Heaves. Rapping the Bullfrog roof instead of Dry Heaves sounds about right. If you're interested, it goes at 5.12a and would be one of the most popular routes at a crag like Waimea.

All the second and third pitches of Alley Oop, Cakewalk, and Dry Heaves have little appeal. Compounding the low-angle, dirty, easy climbing is a descent that is best done by walking the cliff top all the way right to the Madame G rap. I guess they're good if you're looking for solitude on a busy weekend.

Sorry for the thread drift...
Posted by: curmudgeon

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/04/11 05:25 PM

Quite the nest on Bonnie's Roof 12/3. The only newish looking thing was the nut with dark yellow cord on the right. The pin seemed pretty snug but old. I followed the wild direct finish which I hadn't done in twenty years. What a blast! I could not believe how empty the cliffs were on a sunny nice weekend day.

Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/04/11 08:10 PM

Yea, I don't see why the threaded junk is necessary. There is the Pin and multiple cam placements up there. slings and the cord should get tossed imo all looks like shit.
Posted by: eparker_s

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/14/11 09:23 PM

Cable anchors: Love 'em or leave 'em?

I for one am not a fan. Is it stronger and more durable than a bunch of tat? Sure, it's plenty strong. Is it stronger and more durable than the tree it's around? In my mind it is a death sentence to the tree. Although I'll say any tree used to rappel repeatedly has a death sentence. It just seems somehow harsher, to my untrained eyes.

But the cables are freaking everywhere. I mean beating along the cliff top you will stumble onto them.

A lot of effort went into putting these here by someone with the best of intentions I'm sure but I am not sure these anchors are suitable for such a high use climbing area...
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 01:23 AM

I don't like them. They are semi-permanent, violating the traditional idea that anyone can place anchors and anyone can remove them. This means that someone makes a decision for all users and the Preserve itself about how the land will be used.

Although the cables probably last for a very long time, I don't know any way of forming an opinion about how reliable they are, and the ones encased in garden hose hide most of the cable away from evaluating eyes.

When they are installed someplace like the top of Betty, where there really shouldn't be a funnel channeling everyone back down that route, it becomes clear that the judgement of the installers can be poor; nonetheless the difficulty of removing the cable forces everyone else to live with it.

The one thing I doubt is that the cable is any more damaging to the tree than slings are. The real culprit is soil compaction, but to the extent that the cable draws more rappellers to the location, it might still be responsible for hastening the demise of the tree.
Posted by: eparker_s

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 03:43 AM

"You forgot your socket wrench? "
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 03:49 AM

Yeah, I know, its one of the ten essentials, and I didn't have it with me. My bad.

But even with one, I'd be really hesitant to tamper with a cable, because I'd be really afraid of not being able to get it off (bolts rusted, for example) but yet somehow weakening it or otherwise making it less reliable.

The right type of cable cutter is very expensive and doesn't exactly fit in a chalk bag. I actually spent some time checking that out.
Posted by: eparker_s

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 04:12 AM

I hadn't even thought of these anchors in the light of your first point till now. I've never installed or dismantled one of these things. Who has? I'm pretty mechanically inclined so I know I can but it's really forcing the issue. Like do I need a tool bag? Big ol choppers? Blowtorch?

Soil compaction is indeed the real death sentence of any tree used to rap, whether it is webbing, cable. The cable that has gotten me all huffy on the internet is at a point where the tree has outgrown it's cable. I wonder how that will affect the tree, and if it will speed it's demise.
Posted by: eparker_s

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 04:22 AM

I guess if you botch the job you can tie in some webbing.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 04:28 AM

If the cable (or slings) are tight on the tree, it (they) will kill it. If installed loosely, there will, of course, be intermittent pressure on a small arc at the back of the tree when the anchor is loaded, but most of the bark should be unaffected and so the tree should be ok.
Posted by: Doug

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 01:36 PM

Did anyone ever find out / talk to the person installing the cables? Julie mentioned talking to a guide named Jason(?) who knew who was installing them. Can anyone track them down and reach out for a discussion? Maybe they really have been insulated from anybody disagreeing about how great the cables are. Or maybe they just aren't bothered by the dissent.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 02:36 PM

Nut on Bonnies wasn't there yesterday. Pretty sure everyone just thinks it's left or "can't get it out" fixed and cleans it. There is a .75 C4 spot right next to the piton so i don't think it is worth people putting a nut back in the crack

there were cables on Baby P2 these were threaded through some webbing so it was less obvious it was cable.
Posted by: tradjunkie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 03:05 PM

If it was Jason, a guide, then this should be easy. As far as I know there is only one Jason guiding (legally, anyway) at the Gunks, and I am certain some regular on gunks.com knows him well enough to verify and get further details.

Perhaps just pointing out Preserve policy:
"Leave only rock-colored slings at rappel stations."
Neither cables nor garden hose would seem to qualify...
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 03:10 PM

I can't wrap my head around it.

A. It takes a lot of equipment and effort to install one of these cable anchors. This points to a guide being the likely culprit, although of course it isn't dispositive.

B. On the GT Ledge above Feast of Fools is such a butt-stupid place for such an anchor that it can't be a guide who installed it, right? And no guides are taking people up the second pitch of Feast, are they?
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 03:36 PM

Chopping them would get whoever put them up out in the open pretty quick as they would probably start asking questions wink

that is a last resort north conway kinda solution though.
Posted by: eparker_s

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 04:09 PM

Well, I personally am talking about two separate beasts right now I believe. The anchor above feast of fools has been there a long, long time. Long enough to choke the tree. The other issue we are talking about is the sudden proliferation of these anchors. Separate issues in my mind, because of the difference in timing. Perhaps the same person has been installing these for years but?

I have actually met the fellow who was installing so many of these lately. It was late last season and my partner had met him before. He was heading out that day ( with considerable burden ) to install another anchor or two before weather moved in. At the time I took it at face value. I didn't even have an opinion on these anchors at the time. Anyway, he seemed like a hard working, well intentioned, community minded fellow out doing a good deed. As I recall the stated pro of the cable was that year after year you didn't have webbing piling up in huge tat anchors as people continued to add new web but failed to bring a knife and cut out any of the old. Basically a maintenance free anchor...

I am going to chop the cable above feast of fools, that is a big freaking tree to kill. But I am going to tie in new webbing. Contrary to Seth I think this anchor is available and useful, for example on a Saturday when tossing a rope down arrow will implicate you in a giant cluster F.

As for beginning to chop the rest? I'm not going to pretend I've got balls enough or even want the potential drama in my life to start that. Right now this is a one sided conversation with a few voices in agreement. The gunks climbing community is much larger than what is represented here and I think we need a little more input. That said I may also post up a little step by step tutorial for anyone interested after I take care of the Beast Feast Tree.
Posted by: Doug

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 04:19 PM

The Feast of Fools one is, I think, older (not these new French Weave ones). At least if it is the one I am thinking of (on the tree by the start of the last pitch of Easy V) it has been there for years while the new weaves seem to have sprouted over the last year. And according to another thread:
Quote:
The tree has grown out to the point that it is growing around the cable. At places the cable is at least a quarter inch imbedded in the bark of the tree. The two steel quick links are compressed between the tree and the cable.


Seems like that one should go as it is girdling the tree. I'm no arborist and I have no idea how it could be removed without hurting the tree, or if it is already too deep and the tree is doomed.
Posted by: eparker_s

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 04:43 PM

Yup that's the one I'm talking about chopping.
I believe I used the words "I'm no arborist" once when talking about this anchor
Anybody know an arborist? RR, don't you know a tree guy, you were going to ask about that other thing for me? Will ripping this thing out be counter productive? Maybe the best thing would be to remove the tension but not the cable itself?

At the same time I'm inclined to believe a tree can put up with a bit more abuse than what removing this would do.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 04:46 PM

I will email my friend Tim.. he is an arborist and climber.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 05:11 PM

Girdling a tree means cutting through the cambium layer of the tree. The cambium is where water and nutrients are transported, and it is a very thin layer right uner the bark, and outside the wood. If this layer is compromised around the entire diameter of the tree it is equivalent to pinching off someone's esophagus. The tree in question is a white pine (pinus strobus) I believe. It's a decent size, and the bark is on the thicker side in that species, unlike a black birch or red maple that has very thin bark. crushing the bark 1/4 to 1/2 inch all around my not yet be killing the tree, but it is certianly stressed, and will eventually die.

Removing the cable will enable the cambium to recover and start transporting nutrients the way it should. I don't see any harm in removing the cable. In fact, I think it should be removed, and I have a bolt cutter that would probably do the trick.

I'm no Arborist however......I'm just a gimp of a climber, so everything I say is suspect.
Posted by: curmudgeon

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 05:18 PM

I hope an arbortrary concensus can be reached.
Posted by: Doug

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 05:28 PM

I wasn't positive girdling was the proper term - but when searching for effects of a tight cable on a tree I found a discussion that seemed to indicate that is what eventually happens with a cable as the tree grows.
Posted by: eparker_s

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 05:34 PM

Arbortrary! Lol.
Rob, you are either just as much the nerd you appear to be or the best bullshitter known to man. But there ain't no way you getting a bolt cutter in there. EMBEDDED cable. It's luck that the nuts on the clamp are facing outward.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 05:48 PM

A cutting wheel on a cordless drill will cut the nuts off anything, or dive in to also cut the cable out, depending on how sunk the cable is into the bark, it could be difficult to remove the cable completely.
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 07:34 PM

I saw Jason maybe a month ago and he is no longer guiding. The need for real money has won him over.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 07:39 PM

ok here is what he said
"I need a picture, but the tree will form meristematic tissue (cambium) around the cable. Technically the tree is being strangled, but some species are resilient. If they want to get it out, they will need bolt cutters, hammer, and chisel

The can also just cut a piece out and the links and let the tree compartmentalize the rest of the cable "

so.. it sounds like maybe just taking the bit with the rings out would be easiest? then let the tree absorb the rest.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/15/11 08:41 PM

Talk about a fixed gear bicycle!
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/16/11 02:04 AM

That is true Jake..there are other trees here and there at the base with remnants of slings growing out of them...most likely the result of a girdled sling that the tree was able to grow around successfully. Still, there is no reason for it to be there and it will probably kill the thing in all liklelihood.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/16/11 02:38 AM

Yea, if you (or whoever) can get all of it that would be the best. but it seems like if you at least remove the constriction of it so that when it gets wider the cable will be able to move with it then it would be ok.

Posted by: eparker_s

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/16/11 02:45 AM

Ya Rob, hobble yer arse up there.
Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/16/11 02:50 AM

haha wasn't thinking about that.. rob don't go killz yourself to save a tree..
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/16/11 11:50 PM

I'm a tree hugger. I hug every tree I cut down for firewood smile
Posted by: eparker_s

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/17/11 12:26 AM

That thing is outta there... bring a sling next time you do suppers ready. The only thing I saw you huggin was that whiskey bottle



Posted by: jakedatc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/17/11 05:23 AM

Nice, Good job.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/17/11 04:56 PM

Originally Posted By: eparker_s
bring a sling next time you do suppers ready...


...and remove it when you're done top-roping.
Posted by: RangerRob

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/18/11 07:41 PM

Parker....you're only half correct. I'm also hugging a nice bottle of Petron tequila smile
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/19/11 02:51 PM

Nicely done!
Posted by: KathyS

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/19/11 04:47 PM

I'm sure that tree would thank you if it could speak.
Posted by: eparker_s

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 01/23/12 09:05 PM

I'm reminded of a song:
"If trees could walk, they'd stomp the hell, out of lumberjacks. If trees could walk."
Posted by: jhurwitz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/05/12 02:46 AM

I'm joining in on the anchor thread. Kinda new to Gunks.com, though I've been climbing here since early 90's. Just went back and read to some of the early pages and want to add info and ask questions.

First off - I'm a guide named Jason(previously mentioned in this thread?). The only cable anchor I have ever put up is on top of No Picnic. It is a cable anchor encased in thick clear hosing with 4 crosby clamps and 2 quicklinks.(I used to direct and repair ropes courses) I did so only after speaking with Frank and other climbers as to their thoughts. My reason for doing so was that the webbing anchors were being removed from it at an average of at least 3 times per season. When they were removed, people were rapping off of the tree and girdling it. I did this to save the tree. Now people back it up with the occasional sling and it doesn't get removed, thereby saving the tree. I'm okay with that.

I'm curious to know your thoughts on this anchor. I'm serious about wanting feedback. I have a few more of these anchors ready to be used if the occasion should arise. They are not cheap and I am happy to install them but only to help protect the environment (trees). I'm also happy to maintain them.

I am NOT a fan of the cable anchor that was installed on Betty. I know this to be strong enough for a rap, but it's so manky looking to the untrained eye and it shreds skin, rope and webbing with it's exposed cable ends that, I believe, it does more harm than good! The installer of this anchor had good intentions but, IMHO, left behind something that we can learn from and most people are afraid to use. If it is decided a good idea, I'm willing to replace that anchor with my own setup like the one on No Picnic.

As stated in a different thread, I added a pin to Son of Easy O a year or two ago and removed a couple of tri-cams and perhaps an old pin. I'd like to remove the old tri-cams and dead cam garbage, but I'm confused as to how. Any ideas? My next task, when I remember to bring it, is to add a quicklink to that new pin on the right and redo the webbing.

I was also considering completely removing the pin in the rooves on the second pitch on SOEO as it's tweaked out to the side and compromised and completely unnecessary with modern gear. Thoughts?

Any thoughts on other anchors that need help?

Another concern that I have is the replacement of individual pitons like the ones on Classic that should be replaced very soon. The second pin on that route is a cause for concern as I question whether it can be banged out without breaking the exposed section completely off. Thoughts? Is there a gear placement that I never noticed rendering that piton useless? Any other pins that help to maintain the route's protection rating need replacing? Anybody have pins to donate?

-Jason
Posted by: TrappDyke

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/05/12 03:06 AM

Thanks for your contributions Jason. Your cable is just fine. If you wanted to remove some unecessary pins I think M.F., Birdland, and Coex would be fine candidates. If the pin on Classic becomes totally worthless a stick-clip could be left at the base.
Posted by: jhurwitz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/05/12 04:03 AM

Thank you TrappDyke. I'm not really looking to remove just any pin that seems unnecessary as I'm much more interested in replacing pins that are trashed and maintain a protection rating. Perhaps I misrepresented my intentions. Sorry about that.

The one on SOEO was at a bad angle the last time I looked at it. Don't want anyone to clip a shitty pin thinking it's a Gunks bolt! It doesn't need to be replaced as it's an awesome horizontal and easily protected with modern gear. I'm not so sure about the pins on Classic. They might actually need replacing instead of removal to maintain the PG rating.
Posted by: Mike Rawdon

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/05/12 11:46 AM

No Picnic can be walked off in less than a minute. (Just sayin')
Posted by: Coppertone

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/06/12 12:15 AM

How about the the pin on Fat City Direct?
Posted by: jhurwitz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/06/12 04:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon
No Picnic can be walked off in less than a minute. (Just sayin')
Mike, agreed! Unfortunately, that didn't seem to stop people from rapping off of those two trees during the times when that anchor was removed. I was paying attention and noticing fresh rope marks before I replaced the slings(maybe 4 or 5 times over a few years). Then, after consulting Frank, I put up the cable.

FWIW - I'm probably gonna replace that 1/4" cable with a 3/8" in the next month. Gonna make the ends a bit longer and wrap them with duct tape as well.
Posted by: jhurwitz

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/06/12 04:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Coppertone
How about the the pin on Fat City Direct?


Can the pin be replaced with something better? Is there gear there somewhere that I missed? I haven't been on it in over a year and don't remember it's condition except to say that I was less than thrilled to clip it! wink
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/06/12 05:25 AM

I haven't been up there recently. I remember the pin as being a small angle, which means that a cam might fit in there if there is enough room for it. Probably a C3, not an Alien.

Of course, that would return the difficulty of the pitch to its original state at the FFA, when Gary Brown had to hang there and place the pin (no, it was not placed with aid).

The idea of returning the climb to the state of the FFA is probably not going to appeal. I think a decent pin can be placed there, provided one can extract the current resident without breaking it off.
Posted by: Coppertone

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/06/12 02:15 PM

[quote=rg@ofmc
The idea of returning the climb to the state of the FFA is probably not going to appeal. I think a decent pin can be placed there, provided one can extract the current resident without breaking it off.

[/quote]

Pin or gear, either would be good. At least you would have something you could rely on with confidence as opposed to hopping the old pin won't break. Unfortunately a very small minority of our community actually can competantly remove and replace pitons.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/07/12 01:10 AM

Check the OP, can this thread go back to discussing the STATUS of anchors?
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/07/12 02:31 PM

Originally Posted By: jhurwitz
Another concern that I have is the replacement of individual pitons like the ones on Classic that should be replaced very soon. The second pin on that route is a cause for concern as I question whether it can be banged out without breaking the exposed section completely off. Thoughts?


I've been very concerned about that 2nd pin on Classic for a long time. I can bend it with my fingers. It's decoration-only by now, and given that Classic is a very popular moderate, should be a high priority. That pin protects against groundfall from a close-to-the-grade move, and protects seconds from a swing into blocks as they work out the first move.

Thoughts, though? I am also very concerned that it will break off in situ. There is no gear there. A bolt would be just ... heresy and cringeworthy. That's the extent of my deep thoughts.
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/07/12 03:03 PM

Funkness time for that mank.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/07/12 04:15 PM

Chip is right, funking gives the best hope of not breaking the pin off and rendering the crack useless. I'd do it myself but I'm hobbled for a few months with a ruptured ACL repair.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/07/12 04:21 PM

So sorry to hear that, RG!
Posted by: LarE

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/07/12 07:58 PM

Ruptured ACL?!? When, where, how? Hope you are de-hobbled soon!!
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/07/12 08:04 PM

RG were you out shagging flies during batting practice again? Sorry to hear about it! Get well soon.
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/07/12 09:10 PM

Heal fast, RG!
Posted by: wivanov

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/08/12 03:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Julie

I've been very concerned about that 2nd pin on Classic for a long time. I can bend it with my fingers. It's decoration-only by now, and given that Classic is a very popular moderate, should be a high priority. That pin protects against groundfall from a close-to-the-grade move, and protects seconds from a swing into blocks as they work out the first move.


Haven't climbed Classic since 1985 and the pins were scary then. I'd be happy to pay for new pins and/or give a belay if someone's interested ...
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/08/12 03:17 AM

Thanks Julie and others. I did it by jumping from 4-5 feet up onto a gym pad. Landed awkwardly on one foot because I jumped from a wide stem. My ankle dug into the pad and rolled and that displaced my knee enough to rupture the ACL, tear the medial meniscus, and sprain the lateral collateral tendon.

My repair is an allograft, which means it came from a cadaver. I've decided this means I have a ZombKnee, and of course have been careful to check the organ donor box in the driver's license form, since now I'm sorta obligated to give back, if you know what I mean.

I know of two other climbers who have done almost exactly the same thing in the last year. I suspect that cushy pad landings, wonderful as they are for total wipe-outs, may be more dangerous for the knees than something firmer.

Rehab is a long and boring process, as some of you know all too well. I do it religiously. If there are no setbacks, I might be able to do at least some easy outdoor climbing this Fall.
Posted by: oenophore

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/08/12 09:44 AM

Hurts just to read about and goes to show that a mere gym pad is no sure safeguard from injury.
Posted by: fallenglass

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/14/12 05:21 PM

Get well soon RG!
Posted by: wombat

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/12 09:57 PM

sorry Rich. best of luck on the rehab. another reason bouldering sucks. maybe you have more time to drop wisdom on the unwashed masses of g.com
Posted by: oenophore

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/16/12 10:59 PM

Wombat: sorry Rich. best of luck on the rehab. another reason bouldering sucks. maybe you have more time to drop wisdom on the unwashed masses of g.com

RG: It is a little-known fact that garlic salt neutralizes millipede toxins.

Hmm.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 05/17/12 04:37 AM

Into every barrel of wisdom some rain must fall.
Posted by: fotovult

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/11/12 01:16 PM

Was up on erect direction this weekend - been a while but someone clipped all the tat but left a bunch of the clipped nuts where most build the hanging belay. A few were left unclipped but they're hard to assess - bit of a mess under there with a bunch of pointy rusted wires jabbing at you.

It's possible to build an anchor with a few small pieces, but if anyone has the urge to beat on rusted metal that's a good place to start.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/12/12 02:40 AM

That's a bummer about the disappearance. The anchor vanished last year, but it was replaced with 2 equalized fixed nuts as of the springtime.

DL
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/12/12 03:46 AM

That anchor deserves to stay vanished. It is a relic of the days when ED was an aid climb, and stopping there is just taking a very extended hang in the midst of the pitch.
Posted by: curmudgeon

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/03/12 12:56 AM

The Minty tree anchor on the top of the cliff has only one doubled sling. The knot wasn't finished properly and there is a twist in the webbing. The tail on one side is much shorter than the other which might be evidence of slippage. A second piece of webbing might be a welcome addition. eek

Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/04/12 03:46 AM

A water knot is a poor choice for rap slings precisely because the ends can work into the knot under repeated loading. That knot is in a dangerous state---it should either be retied with a double fisherman's knot or, if there isn't enough webbing for that, removed and replaced with something better.

Tied like that it's a booby-trap, and belongs in a textbook on what not to rap off.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/26/12 01:57 PM

FYI - the "anchor" atop Wisecrack does not exist - the best option is to place some directionals and belay at the Middle Earth tree.

DL
Posted by: kenr

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/27/12 01:22 AM

Originally Posted By: curmudgeon
The Minty tree anchor on the top of the cliff has only one doubled sling. The knot wasn't finished properly ...

But there's little point in climbing to the top of cliff on Minty unless you intend to descend by walking off and later scrambling.

If you want to rappel after climbing (the worthshile sections of) Minty, just stop at the GT ledge.

Ken
Posted by: Coppertone

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/27/12 04:07 AM

Originally Posted By: kenr
Originally Posted By: curmudgeon
The Minty tree anchor on the top of the cliff has only one doubled sling. The knot wasn't finished properly ...

But there's little point in climbing to the top of cliff on Minty unless you intend to descend by walking off and later scrambling.

If you want to rappel after climbing (the worthshile sections of) Minty, just stop at the GT ledge.

Ken

Perhaps you missed the fun overhang at the top of the cliff off of the GT? That is plenty fun whether you are a 5.3 or 5.10 climber, not sure why you would skip that.
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/27/12 02:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Coppertone
Originally Posted By: kenr
Originally Posted By: curmudgeon
The Minty tree anchor on the top of the cliff has only one doubled sling. The knot wasn't finished properly ...

But there's little point in climbing to the top of cliff on Minty unless you intend to descend by walking off and later scrambling.

If you want to rappel after climbing (the worthshile sections of) Minty, just stop at the GT ledge.

Ken

Perhaps you missed the fun overhang at the top of the cliff off of the GT? That is plenty fun whether you are a 5.3 or 5.10 climber, not sure why you would skip that.

+1
The top pitch of Minty is great! There's also a desperate (for its grade) 5.5 overhang variation as well.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/27/12 09:35 PM

I cannot fathom why the final pitch options for Minty are any less "worthwile" than the pitches below. The rock is solid and clean and the overhang variation is impressive for the grade.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/27/12 11:19 PM

The top pitch of Minty is very nice. And there is no reason to rap there. Take the two minute walk to the Madame G bolted rap route.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/24/12 07:04 PM

Hey the Balrog tree needs some new webbing. The two gray slings that are tied together there are intact and haven't faded all that much but they are very stiff/brittle. After I led the pitch (I eventually got the crux...) I put my cordalette around the tree and we were going to send our last climber up with some new webbing but in the moment we forgot, I am sorry.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/03/12 03:24 PM

I have a rope that I plan on retiring after the season. I can cut it down to pieces, inspect them for core shots, and use them to replace existing old webbing anchor. Does that make sense or should I just recycle the rope?
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/05/12 06:35 AM

Cut 40' from the rope and recycle what's left if you're one of those "green" people, then use the end you hacked and use it to reinforce anchors - ONLY if you tie a good fisherman's knot.

The Balrog anchor is very well done, but it's only one piece of fabric - would be nice if a redundant piece was added.

DL
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 12/06/12 01:09 AM

A number of us have been doing this with retired half ropes. Install two independently tied loops (double or even triple fisherman's knot) with appropriate quicklinks and cut away all the old anchor tat.

But do think twice about whether a particular rap anchor is needed at all, or whether existing nearby anchors are already sufficient.
Posted by: browndog2

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 01/02/13 11:17 PM

Just trim th end 20 feet from either side and make it into your gym rope. At least that is what i hear some folks do. then use the trim to replace that steel cable thats chewing into the Baby rap tree.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/08/13 02:20 AM

Hey someone replaced that second pin on Classic. FYI.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/08/13 12:56 PM

Many thanks to whomever did the Classic pin! You are owed a beverage of choice.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/10/13 03:33 PM

There's a comment on MP that the rappel webbing on Double Chin is almost cut through.
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/10/13 08:10 PM

Thanks Julie.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/11/13 04:57 AM

Here's the comment:
Quote:
The webbing on the tree has almost been cut through.

There is one rope that looks good but the double fishermans has short tails. I was pretty sketched on the rappel but just added another double sling around the tree for the belay up.

Might just want to head past the tree and set up your own anchor and walk off.


It's hard to tell what the situation is: it sounds as if there is a piece of webbing and a piece of rope, the webbing is almost cut through and the rope has short tails on its knot.

Pardon my French, but holy shit!

The guy leaves an almost severed sling in place so someone else can be killed by it? (Not to worry, he reports it on Mountain Project, which of course everyone reads before attempting Double Chin.) CUT THE DAMN SLING OFF IF IT IS NO GOOD.

I can't believe he left it there. Can't believe it.

The guy is fully aware of the simple walk-off and yet chooses a rappel that in his judgement is "sketched out"? Yikes! Was a tsunami barreling over the Catskills heading straight for the top of Double Chin? IF THE ANCHOR IS BAD, CUT THE WHOLE THING OFF AND REPLACE IT IF YOU CAN, OTHERWISE WALK OFF.

It is far better to leave no anchor than one you judge to be "sketchy." Someone with some extra webbing or cordage will soon replace a missing anchor, and in the meantime parties who suddenly find they have to get back down without rapping will surely rise to meet this challenge, once they recover from the shock and horror of being stranded all the way at the top of Double Chin.
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/11/13 01:14 PM

Amen, RG.
Posted by: whatthegunks

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/11/13 02:59 PM

Early last month I replaced the ancohor material on P1 of Sixish. I used 7mm cord and combined the three pins with a half sized tri-cam equalized to a master point with a pair of aluminum rap rings. I also cut out the shit show of an "anchor" on the totally dead (and all too skinny anyhow) tree between Drunkard's roof and Sixish. I felt like this provided a not totally ideal but way more safe rappel for this area (more ideal if anchor were not quite so far off to left of first rap and not sharing typical belay stance for P1 of 6ish).

I was amazed on Saturday to find that somebody had taken the cordalette, rings and tri-cam that I left. This, to me, is stealing. I assume that the party either had an ethical issue with the anchor or was so tight on money that they needed my less than brand new tri-cam and 7mm cord. Either way it's still not something easy to defend. If anybody notices an older .5 tri-cam out there on somebody's rack that has JV etched on the side of it please let me know, I'd love to have a talk with them.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/11/13 03:28 PM

Joe, I happened to do Sixish last Wednesday with a visitor from California and was delighted to find the anchor up there totally clean. I'm sorry your stuff got taken, and I can assure you that I would not have done that myself, but I think the incessant proliferation of rap anchors in the Gunks is an unmitigated bad thing and the removal of that anchor is actually for the best. We've already had an interchange about this in general upthread, but this particular location is a prime example of what not to do:

Stacking ascending and descending parties on that ledge is about as bad an idea as it is possible to have. Encouraging parties to rap off one of the classic three-pitch routes, with every pitch good for those climbing at the grade, is plain wrong-headed.

My personal opinion is that good as your intentions are, you are doing a disservice when you encourage rapping straight down ascent routes, encourage crowding at small stances, and encourage blocking good multipitch climbs by installing rap stations at the first pitch. I'm sorry your stuff got taken--- even though it isn't your stuff at all once you leave it up on the cliff---and I sincerely hope you will not go back and replace that particular anchor.

The best thing that could happen by far, as those pins deteriorate, is that they get removed and the stance, which has plenty of opportunities for gear placements, reverts to a more natural state.
Posted by: whatthegunks

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/11/13 05:53 PM

Right, so we'll continue to disagree.

That my stuff was no longer mine once I pulled the rope and walked away does not change the fact that somebody went through the trouble of dismantling a fairly safe anchor and pocketted the gear; totally lame. Nobody took the tat that was there before, nor the pile of tat on the tree above, they just STOLE the newer gear.

I'll wager that anchor will be reestablished by the end of the month and not by me, I made my donation.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/11/13 08:08 PM

Re: Double Chin .... totally LOL, Rich.

Re: "shit show of an "anchor" on the totally dead (and all too skinny anyhow) tree between Drunkard's roof and Sixish." -- thank you for chopping that one. I think that appears when someone tries to rappel with a single 60 from the GT at Drunkard's because hey you can rappel everywhere with a single 60, right? But yeah. Shit show.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/11/13 08:48 PM

Originally Posted By: whatthegunks
...somebody went through the trouble of dismantling a fairly safe anchor and pocketted the gear....


Maybe the fact that it was only a "fairly safe anchor" had something to do with the gear being removed? confused
Posted by: kenr

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/11/13 10:29 PM

Originally Posted By: whatthegunks
Early last month I replaced the anchor material on P1 of Sixish. I used 7mm cord and combined the three pins with a half sized tri-cam equalized to a master point with a pair of aluminum rap rings.


I'll guess that for descending you intended to reach this P1 anchor by rappelling from the GT ledge. Not completely obvious how to get from the top of P3 of Sixish down to the GT ledge (since the top of Sixish P3 is not such an inviting spot to rappel from).

Anyway I note that once on the GT ledge near the top of P2 of Sixish, it is straightforward to walk horizontally southwest on the GT ledge to the Kamasutra rappel anchor, with bolts and chains. From there it's straightforward to make two single-rope rappels to the ground. (I'm not recommending this approach for descending from top of Sixish, only suggesting that it's better than using the popular + narrow Sixish P1 anchor).

Of course this does include rappelling down a possible ascent route, but:
(a) the Kamasutra bolt-and-chain anchors were installed by the Mohonk Preserve, pretty obviously intended for rappeling;
(b) Kamasutra P2 is rarely climbed upward, and Kamasutra P1 virtually never.

And of course it's very straightforward to just walk off from the top of Sixish with no rappeling at all -- first find a way up toward the top of the ridge, then follow the ridge trail roughly southwest to one of the descent routes near the Uberfall and down-climb to the Undercliff carriage road. (or if cannot handle class 4 or low class 5 down-climbing, can continue following the trail roughly southwest until it comes to a long but easy scramble down to hit the carriage road just a bit east from the "practice rock".

Ken
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/11/13 11:08 PM

Originally Posted By: whatthegunks
I was amazed on Saturday to find that somebody had taken the cordalette, rings and tri-cam that I left. This, to me, is stealing.

No. It's called removing trash. A rap anchor there is stupid.
Posted by: kenr

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/12/13 12:46 AM

Son of Easy O P2 top anchor as of June 9 was composed of steel chains, steel rings, and three pitons.

This location also makes a nice intermediate belay for P2 of Easy Overhang -- good for a leader to stay in sight of and in communication with a follower who might be struggling to figure out the "easy" way to do the overhang at the start of Easy O P2.

Seemed like the ledge was big enough and the anchor well-positioned horizontally so it can be shared by parties on both Easy Overhang and Son of Easy O.

Ken
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/12/13 02:32 AM

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc

Encouraging parties to rap off one of the classic three-pitch routes, with every pitch good for those climbing at the grade, is plain wrong-headed.


I agree Pitch 1 & 3 are high quality but p2 doesn't feel special to me. I have to admit that I have done just p1 after work mid-week and liked that I could rappel instead of down-solo or climb to the GT.

Just trying to keep the debate alive grin
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/12/13 10:01 AM

Originally Posted By: retroscree

No. It's called removing trash. A rap anchor there is stupid.

Is this really a forgone conclusion?
Posted by: whatthegunks

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/12/13 12:42 PM

Originally Posted By: cfrac
Originally Posted By: retroscree

No. It's called removing trash. A rap anchor there is stupid.

Is this really a forgone conclusion?


I'm thinking not so much.
Posted by: whatthegunks

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/12/13 01:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Rickster
Originally Posted By: whatthegunks
...somebody went through the trouble of dismantling a fairly safe anchor and pocketted the gear....


Maybe the fact that it was only a "fairly safe anchor" had something to do with the gear being removed? confused


Good point, goes to show how lame indefinite language is, if I were speaking to you I'd have ended "fairly safe anchor" with an upward inflection as if it were a question. So, let me re-phrase; a fully bombproof anchor combining the three pins and a well placed .5 tri-cam, equalized and redundant with a pair of aluminum rings in the master point. Of course a pair of 1/2 inch glue-ins would be fairly safer (?).
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/12/13 06:48 PM

Originally Posted By: cfrac
I have to admit that I have done just p1 after work mid-week and liked that I could rappel instead of down-solo or climb to the GT.


Then it would be even better if a rappel line was left on the anchor so you wouldn't have to drag that up with you.
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 12:58 AM

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
Originally Posted By: cfrac
I have to admit that I have done just p1 after work mid-week and liked that I could rappel instead of down-solo or climb to the GT.


Then it would be even better if a rappel line was left on the anchor so you wouldn't have to drag that up with you.


I don't understand your point Rich. Are you implying that I had to drag up a rappel rope to rappel? I use my lead rope to rappel.

My guess is that the point you are making is that I am using the anchor for convenience and that anchors should not be placed for the ease of descent but only as a necessity. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is that your point? I am trying to see things from your perspective.
Posted by: Dana

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 01:10 AM

Hi Chris,

My guess is that Rich is saying that if convenience is the guiding principle for how we decorate the Trapps, then fixed anchors would logically lead to fixed rappel ropes, which would lead to etc., etc.

Dana
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 02:27 AM

huh. I really like p2 of 6ish, especially when I link it to p1. I feel like I'm alone up there on the face, and there's a few nice crack moves and pretty rock. if I manage not to kill myself with rope drag, life is good!
I've never actually used that anchor myself, always seems easy enough to link then rap over by frogs head.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 02:35 AM

Yes Chris, Dana got it, I was making a slippery slope type joke. But also, when you mentioned down-soloing, I assumed you had already up-soloed.

I didn't think you seriously meant to suggest that we ought to install anchors so that folks could come after work and do only one pitch. Having something there so a local or two can amuse themselves after work is really asking for a hell of an entitlement.

Although Joe said earlier that I haven't changed my position and that I was living in some fantasy world related to how things used to be, he's wrong on both counts. I accept and believe in the need to have rappel routes, and haven't proposed walking back as any kind of general solution for years.

But I still don't believe that we ought to tolerate convenience anchors put anywhere. The chaotic proliferation of such anchors is what started the Preserve on its bolting projects, which have certainly failed to stem the tide.

A host of convenience anchors is ugly, potentially dangerous when they route descending parties down ascent routes, and inevitably clogs multipitch routes with people doing and then top-roping just the first pitch. That's bad resource management and it degrades the Gunks climbing experience.

The intelligent approach, which the Preserve learned after its initial mistakes, is to have descent routes which, as much as possible, do not interfere with ascent routes, at least not popular ones. Routing parties straight down Sixish violates every principle of good sense mentioned above, and then includes the additional unpleasantness associated with a very small stance. It is almost a textbook case of what not to do, unless your goal is to bring Chrimson Chrysalis back East.

On another issue, the idea that Joe's anchor was "stolen" is a modern concept that I think should at least be argued. From the advent of chromemolly pitons, it was the norm that people could add anchors, and people could remove anchors. That's the way it was all over the U.S. The breaking of this symmetry is really quite recent. Now we hear that people can add anchors but then they "own" them and removing them is stealing. In other words, those who want to add anchors have some sort of god-given right to do so, and once those anchors are there, no matter how stupidly located or unnecessary they might be, they are sacrosanct. This is, of course, a recipe for wrapping the cliffs in nylon, at which point they will be an absolutely ideal venue for those after-work jaunts.
Posted by: Dana

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 03:30 AM

I'm with Julie, by the way. I think the second pitch of Sixish is absolutely charming.
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 04:00 AM

OK, I think I followed all of that. When I solo I usually down solo easier routes. I like doing the routes around Jackie because I like coming back down Betty. Same with Frog's Head area because of Easy-O. If I am out after work with friends that are new to climbing I will do a route like Sixish and end at the p1 anchor. I don't like down soloing Sixish because I find the moves 20 feet up kind of weird so it's nice to be able to rappel. I tend to avoid the Trapps on weekends when the weather is nice so I am unfamiliar with these rappelling traffic jams on Sixish. Is it really that big of a problem?

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc

I didn't think you seriously meant to suggest that we ought to install anchors so that folks could come after work and do only one pitch. Having something there so a local or two can amuse themselves after work is really asking for a hell of an entitlement.


I know I joke around quite a bit, but I really don't see a problem with anchors in the Trapps and Near Trapps that enable someone to lead a single pitch and then rappel. I mean isn't all of the climbing in the Gunks an entitlement? As far as "having something for a local or two to amuse themselves after work" seems to imply that everyone else is out there climbing for some greater purpose. I climb for many reasons but I think the main reason is because I find it incredibly fun. Am I really in the minority here because I am a local that climbs after work for fun and don't always get roped into doing multi-pitch routes. (sorry, just a bit of wordplay there)

Do you (RG and others) see the p1 anchors at the top of Criss Cross, RoseLand/Shitface, Workout Wall, BirdLand etc... the same way?

I guess I am very curious about all of this because though I have read your arguments (and others) and understand what you are saying I just see it so differently. It also seems that there is a pretext that anyone who doesn't see it a certain way has a shallow view of the larger context of the issue. I understand that you and many others that have climbed here for a long time may be seeing a wider picture that perhaps I can not somehow grasp, but the arguments don't feel compelling enough to win me over...yet.
Posted by: kenr

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 04:48 AM

I generally like the "convenience" anchors that the Preserve has installed at the top of the P1 of various routes. And I like that they recently improved the convenience of the Son of Easy O anchor.

There's not so many days with dry rock in the Gunks that fit my schedule, and I have to drive a significant time to get to the Gunks -- so I want to make the most of each day I get. Building Trad anchors is a waste of precious time. (If I need practice in the "dying art" of building Trad anchors to prepare for some multi-pitch alpine route, I know how to get that -- No reason to mix that in with a precious fun day of Gunks easy climbing.

But I (like most people who climb Sixish) do enjoy leading P2, and do enjoy doing Sixish as a three-pitch climb to the top of the ridge. So having a traffic jam at the top of P1 is not what I favor. I think the number of parties who want to do only P1 of Sixish is like 1 in a 1000. So I feel the current P1 anchor of Sixish (as of last week) is just the right level of "convenience" for me (and I did back up the pitons with a piece of Trad gear).

Ken

P.S. my challenge to RGold:
OK so you recognize that it's OK for people to rap down instead of walking. So what positive advice do you give to people who want to rap down after climbing P3 of Sixish?
(because in the absence of a positive alternative, lots of people who climb with a single rope are going to want to rap down to that Sixish P1 anchor.)

Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 05:21 AM

Chris, when you ask whether I and others see things analogously, the answer is that it seems to be pretty much me. I am aware of fighting a losing battle, but think it worth the effort, although only for very little more time. The fact that I can't even convince you, who as a Millbrook aficiando I would have thought would understand, is an indication of just how little effect my efforts are likely to have. I'm nearly 70, and I'm getting understandably tired of arguing to no purpose.

My interest is in preserving what I think is a vanishing experience for future generations. The Gunks is one of but a few climbing areas where this is possible, because the Preserve has kept the waves of bolting that have swept other areas at bay, and has limited the placement of new pitons. A climber can come here and face a pitch or two or three of climbing on rock that hasn't been carved up and decorated to satisfy the never-ending demands of convenience that try to make everything as much like the gym as possible. They might even be obliged to haul their asses up the offensive second pitch of Sixish (like Julie and Dana, I like that pitch too), because that's what nature put there and so that's what they have to deal with. I think that those kind of inevitabilities enrich the climbing experience, rather than draining it of "fun."

As climbing areas become more and more equipped, a climber has to journey to remote locales to experience climbing in a setting that hasn't been extensively altered. This means that such experiences will increasingly become the province of a tiny minority who have the time and the funds to mount the necessary expeditions.

It doesn't have to be that way. The Gunks could fairly easily, with a change in current direction, become a place where a bit of the adventures of remote locations still abides. I think that is a worthier goal than making all kinds of alterations so folks can have "fun" after work, and perhaps that is the larger context you are referring to.

The typical response is that the Trapps have already been tainted and so we might as well just let 'em go to hell. To me, this makes as much sense as saying because your house got a little dusty, you should start urinating in the corners, but other people seem to find such arguments persuasive.

Then there is kenr's comment:

Building Trad anchors is a waste of precious time. (If I need practice in the "dying art" of building Trad anchors to prepare for some multi-pitch alpine route, I know how to get that -- No reason to mix that in with a precious fun day of Gunks easy climbing.

Fiddling with trad protection is a waste of precious time too, but beyond that I have no real answer, other than something that would offend kenr, and I'm not going there. I might add that several years ago a poster said almost the identical thing about the need for Carriage Road signs identifying the locations of climbs. He had no desire to waste his precious time trying to locate routes. Kenr's comment provides more evidence that it is time for me to shut up.

In answer to Chris's specific question about the anchors in the Near Trapps you mentioned, my answer would be yes, I see them exactly the same way. In a number of cases, by the way, there is good climbing above that no one knows about or does any more.

Here's a prediction, Chris. Left unchecked, the proliferation of convenience practices will eventually gross you out too, but it will be too late by then. I made an analogous prediction once before to a climber, who heaped scorn upon it and me. About eight years later, he appeared in an ad (I think for the Access Fund) bemoaning the kinds of things I claimed his attitudes would engender. Believe me when I say that I took absolutely no pleasure in that.

So those are the larger-context concerns. I guess they are also informed by a particular view of trad climbing that may also be fading, a view that includes far more than the what type of gear is or is not used for protection.

Although the arguments I made were certainly fueled by a hope that Gunks climbing could be saved from the scourge of ever more convenience modifications (for which, by the way, there will always be an enthusiastic audience), the particulars of my comments were addressed to intelligent resource management. Making rappel routes go down climbing routes is bad practice, no matter where you stand on the larger-context issues I described. And whether or not Sixish is currently jammed on weekends is surely not the point. In climbing, "if you build it, they will come" is a fairly accurate prophesy, and even it it is not fulfilled, there is no good reason to send even one party down on top of an ascending party when there are perfectly good ways down nearby.

Again from kenr,

OK so you recognize that it's OK for people to rap down instead of walking. So what positive advice do you give to people who want to rap down after climbing P3 of Sixish? (Because in the absence of a positive alternative, lots of people who climb with a single rope are going to want to rap down to that Sixish P1 anchor.)

I just did Sixish last week and rapped down, with no problem whatsoever. It did involve walking perhaps a few hundred feet. Is it ok for the descent to be a slight puzzle, or does every route have to be provided with a sling at the top to start back down with?

Posted by: kenr

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 06:34 AM

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
I just did Sixish last week and rapped down, with no problem whatsoever. It did involve walking perhaps a few hundred feet. Is it ok for the descent to be a slight puzzle, or does every route have to be provided with a sling at the top to start back down with?

That's just what I did from the top of Sixish last week: Walked a couple of hundred feet and rappeled down. Note that in my response to the earlier post about Sixish, I did not say how exactly how I did it. So I helped preserve the "slight puzzle". But there are consequences to leaving that puzzle ... one is that some people will "solve" it with less ingenuity -- and so crowd the belay ledge at P1.
Posted by: kenr

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 07:08 AM

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
The Gunks could fairly easily, with a change in current direction, become a place where a bit of the adventures of remote locations still abides.
... informed by a particular view of trad climbing that may also be fading, a view that includes far more than the what type of gear is or is not used for protection.

I recall a wise climber writing ten or twenty years ago that future generations would be grateful that the adventurous character of Gunks climbing had been retained. Well now, my feeling is, based on: (a) The percentage of 20-year-old climbers in the southern NY - NJ area who do any Trad climbing; and (b) The smaller number of climbers in the Trapps (even smaller number in the Nears?) on recent wonderful weekend-weather days -- that this future generation is not feeling much gratitude.

I do know a couple of 20-year-old climbers who are excitedly discovering Trad climbing in the Gunks, rapidly "working their way up through the grades" in leading. They have not mentioned the slightest discomfort with convenience anchors, or any preference for routes that lack them.

I recall Russ Clune in the last couple of years was quoted as saying that Trad climbing is really about long multi-pitch routes, so most of the Eastern USA really can't match the Western mountains for that.

Myself, I love long high-mountain routes: I eagerly seek them out in Europe, and I'm much looking forward to a trip to the high Sierras soon. But the Gunks can't deliver that level of adventure for me in roped climbing, because I carry a mobile phone with the Preserve phone number in memory, and I lead with double-ropes, so I can just sacrifice some gear and escape by rappeling all the way to the ground from 99.9% of the rock in the Gunks.

Anyway I actually enjoy building Trad anchors when I'm Leading in the Gunks, because it's my own creative action. It's when I'm Following that I hate it, because it's just more time sitting around waiting while somebody else does their creative adventure thing.

Free soloing: There's still adventure in the Gunks, and no amount of additional convenience anchors can take that away. Great easy/moderate climbs mostly on pretty sound rock -- the key ingredients for a free solo circuit. Also great prep for long high-mountain routes, and great motivation for doing lots of practice down-climbing.

For a possible future of two-pitch Trad adventure climbing without convenience anchors, check out the thread on MountainProject about Delaware Water Gap climbing, note the frequent comments about "vegetation" on good routes that nobody seems to do much any more. So when I need that good old-time two-pitch adventure climbing I know where to find it -- if not on the hundreds of Gunks routes that will still be un-convenienced (and newly vegetated?) twenty years from now - (and there's the Dacks).

Ken
Posted by: kenr

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 10:09 AM

I'm having trouble understanding how lack of bolt (or other convenience) anchors is a crucial part of the Gunks "adventure" experience.

When I lead indoors, usually I find that making the clip at an intermediate bolt is the crux of the climb (hanging on with one hand) -- and sometimes I've backed off on indoor leads because pulling out the rope and contemplating a significant fall was mentally too much.

Sport climbing outdoors -- I can remember a couple of times even with bolt anchors where I was so pumped when I reached the overhanging anchor that I was afraid I was going to take a substantial fall while making the final clip - (and the only time I ever got significantly injured Leading was an intermediate fall on a bolted route).

Gunks -- In all the Gunks climbs I've led so far, the belay was on some horizontal ledge with a good stance, and the Trad gear placement "rocket science" was sticking three cams into a horizontal crack. (I even use the climbing rope with clove hitches to connect to the cams -- none of that unnecessary Cordelette stuff for me.)

I do feel the adventure of contemplating falling on a "PG" route and breaking my ankle hitting one of those notorious Gunks horizontals. I do get the adventure of fiddling to find the right stopper while standing on little footholds on a typical Gunks slab/face.

My concept of "adventure" implies uncertainty with serious negative consequences. How do most Gunks belay stations deliver on that?

Ken
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 03:35 PM

I think pitch two of Sixish is great.

Also I think I am with RG here. I don't think these pitch one convenience anchors are good, especially in the long run. I don't know if my reasoning derives from a desire for adventure. Instead I object because these anchors tend to influence climbers to skip the upper pitches, lead to traffic jams, and contribute to polish on popular routes.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 04:08 PM

Originally Posted By: kenr
Gunks -- In all the Gunks climbs I've led so far, the belay was on some horizontal ledge with a good stance, and the Trad gear placement "rocket science" was sticking three cams into a horizontal crack. (I even use the climbing rope with clove hitches to connect to the cams -- none of that unnecessary Cordelette stuff for me.)


I've only climbed at JTree, Zion, Yosemite, Red Rock and east coast areas. As far as I remember, all belays are on good ledges (except Tunnel Vision P2 worse belay bolts ever). Crimson Chrysalis is bad too, lol.

Originally Posted By: kenr

My concept of "adventure" implies uncertainty with serious negative consequences. How do most Gunks belay stations deliver on that?

Is that what you really want for belay stations? Hop on some dessert routes, that'll probably wake you up.

Originally Posted By: SethG

Instead I object because these anchors tend to influence climbers to skip the upper pitches, lead to traffic jams, and contribute to polish on popular routes.

Well, how do we address traffic jams on No Glow, Keep On Struttin' ledge?

I don't know, I agree with RG mostly, but I don't think there is a solution to the problem.
Posted by: Rockanice

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 04:37 PM

It seems to me this quibbling over bolts and sling placement is part and parcel of one of the sadder by-products attending the massive increase in numbers of people pursuing climbing these days. I say "people pursuing climbing" because I hesitate to say the word "climber".

I don't know what that word means anymore. I thought I knew, maybe I never really did, though. I had an ideal beyond mechanics that encompassed how a set of challenges were taken on. To be a climber to the general public was once a strange enigmnatic concept- a truly fringe endeavor that puzzled people and I guess it still does to some extent. However, more often now the unititiated can relate to you because they had attended a climbing birthday party. " Oh, yeah, I know about climbing" they say. I might just smile and think "sure you do".

Once to be a climber was to be self-reliant, possessing skills and nerve that would see you through uncertain terrain or perhaps dictate a retreat if need be, etc. etc. etc.

To get there, you evolved through a series of experiences that cultivated your developing set of skills and way of thinking.

Now to be a climber, you may have just passed your belay test in the gym.

I think what may being decried here is the dilution of the overall Brand, along with a call to mitigate that dilution here in this 'bastion of traditional climbing'. The mindset of the climber has morphed with the inroads that come with the strictly Gym Climber mentality. I see a fear here in this thread, that those aspirants who are just now finding their way through may be exposed to a lower common denominator with the convenience trend, that robs them of the problem-solving, self reliant aspects that should be prized in a climber's make-up.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/13/13 05:01 PM

I remember long ago when I started this thread and it was just about the status of anchors.

Keep up the good work rGold, and don't stop running your mouth like all of my favorite senior faculty members in the senate do. I'm not tenured and keeping quiet while I work on my book, if ya know what I mean.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/14/13 07:22 PM

Sorry you think I'm doing nothing more than running my mouth. It takes some time and thought to post those "runnings," and I do it because I care about the future of the Gunks.

As I said earlier, I'm pretty close to quitting this increasingly quixotic quest, so you'll have a respite soon enough. Perhaps you can even go back to discussing anchor status without any consideration of anchor appropriateness, if that was seriously your original intent.

By the way, everyone has "tenure" at the Gunks. No committee can vote you off the cliffs.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/15/13 12:27 AM

I'm a pedantic academician, junior faculty at a downstate community college. Maybe that clears things up...
Posted by: kenr

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/15/13 02:19 AM

Thanks to rg's suggestion, I just added a small segment of one of my climbing ropes to the tree anchor at the top of Beginner's Delight.

But it was a single-rope instead of the suggested half / double rope. And I don't know if that tree is disapproved for rappelling - (or if the tree about 20-30 yards southwest along the GT ledge from below it is approved or disapproved) - so Please may those with greater experience and judgment in there matters advise me about whether I should go back and remove that piece of rope.

I do know that with double 60m ropes it is possible to rappel from that tree all the way down to a ledge with a short easy scramble to the ground. I also know that it is then possible to have difficulty retrieving the double-ropes (fortunately I was able to learn this by watching another party).

Ken
Posted by: Kent

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/15/13 11:51 AM

No trees on the GT ledge should be "approved" for rappelling. The resulting soil compaction will kill them. This is why many rappel trees on the GT ledge have already died. If you don't want to contribute to killing the trees rap from bolted stations, or climb to the top and walk off.

Luncander, RG is something of a historical treasure at the gunks. As both a junior faculty member and a comparatively junior climber, perhaps you will consider the wisdom of just being quiet and listening.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/15/13 04:42 PM

Why thank you Kent. If anyone out there aspires to the exalted position of historical treasure, let me assure you that there isn't a single good thing about it.

Even though I've installed or upgraded some tree rap anchors myself, I think it is a bad idea for the reasons Kent describes. The trees will be killed by soil compaction caused by climbers. Of course, it makes absolutely no sense to install bolts right next to the trees so that there is no relief of the trampling; this is one of several major defects of the Preserve's reactive bolting program. They let climbers, who by and large don't care about ecological impacts, decide where those impacts will be concentrated.

A number of people have said there is no solution to these issues. I agree that at this point we can't expect climbers to come up with any on their own, especially as the ranks of young climbers from the gym expand, since these folks, talented as they are, don't know what trad climbing is and tend to define it totally in terms of what type of gear is used for protection.

The situation is a bit like what happens with many kids growing up. They can be very picky about what foods they eat. When they get older, they "discover" all kinds of tasty things they wouldn't touch earlier in life. If these same kids got to determine food production in their early years, we might have little more than macaroni and cheese for everyone.

At this point in the evolution of climbing, trad climbing is more and more in the position of those tasty grown-up foods. If the people who know what it is and appreciate it don't advocate for its survival, the kids won't get to choose something different later on, because the "something different" won't be there.

In places like the Trapps, the only hope I see would be for the Preserve to intervene, a possibility that seems unlikely to me. I don't think the Preserve has any vested interest in preserving trad climbing per se, especially since one of the intrinsic ingredients in trad climbing is risk.

But one could speak of rational resource management, which we don't see at the moment either. What is needed is a sufficient number of intelligently planned bolted rappel routes to service the entire crag, coupled with an outright ban on any climber-installed rappel anchors. This would inevitably mean that some short walks at the cliff top would be required to access descent routes, and so might bring some more erosion to the top, although the descents could be planned so that most routes to them would be as slabby as possible and erosion-prone slopes and gullies could be avoided. All that would, of course, be part of planning the descents.

The choice to fully isolate the top from serious impacts is otherwise going to be at the expense of (1) the cliff base, which has already been severely impacted and which cannot, at this point, be protected, and (2) the trees on the cliff, some of which have already been killed by climber's soil impacts. I think descent routes and paths to them at the top could be planned with very little real impact to the top, but of course it's not as if I've made a careful study of it.

Of course, even with a ban on climber-installed rap anchors, such anchors will be created. But I think an official ban will mean that there will be many climbers willing to cut rogue anchors down, and so there will be enough control to keep the situation from getting out of hand, as it is now.
Posted by: kenr

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/15/13 09:34 PM

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
The trees will be killed by soil compaction caused by climbers ... ecological impacts

Something I'm not getting here, likely because I don't know much about ecology or land management.

I sorta thought Ecology was about niches and species and populations and energy exchanges and other system interactions among all those. I had not thought that Ecology was much about individual trees -- unless it's a tree that plays a very special role (e.g. the first instance of a non-indigenous species entering a new niche).

I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of trees of the same species as the one at the top of Beginners Delight are on the Gunks ridge, but that species population is well-established, and I'm not getting how having one fewer individual organisms makes any significant difference in the Ecological system of the Gunks ridge, or why land resource managers ought to give any priority for worrying, warning about, or monitoring the Beginners Delight tree.

But that's just my non-expert guess.

Perhaps some climbers could worry that sometime after (or before?) that tree dies, they will no longer be able to use it as a rappel anchor.

Since I've walked off or away from the top of Beginners Delight several times (including immediately after I placed that rope segment), that result won't be a problem for me.

Ken
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/15/13 11:16 PM

In my mind, this discussion is about more than one tree. The Beginner's Delight tree is but the most recent example of what many have witnessed over the past decades. After 41 years of climbing, I don't climb much as of late, but it has still become evident that the cliff face is suffering the wear and tear of our repeated passing, the foliage along the cliff face (above, below and on the face itself) suffers the most. As goes the Beginner's Delight rap tree, so goes all the other rap/belay trees.
Posted by: TrappDyke

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/15/13 11:30 PM

Ken, I totally agree. Same goes with those damn birds. I could be climbing Coex right now (to the top of course) if it weren't for those little squakers. It's not like if we gave them the old boot of the ledge there wouldn't be thousands more somewhere NOT in the way of MY climbs.
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/16/13 03:19 AM

RG: I think we both have the same aim, which is in preserving the adventure of climbing. Where we differ, I think, is how anchors play into the equation. I have many thoughts and opinions, but I don't have the time right now to compose a thoughtful response...too many irons in the fire!

Still enjoying reading the responses though!
CFrac
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/16/13 02:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent

Luncander, RG is something of a historical treasure at the gunks. As both a junior faculty member and a comparatively junior climber, perhaps you will consider the wisdom of just being quiet and listening.


If you'll take the time to read the 20+ pages on this thread, you'll notice that this is precisely what I've done. I agree with RG on most of his points and don't bother adding my 2 pennies.
Posted by: Dana

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/16/13 06:18 PM

Dave,

Check the Visitor Center this week - something for you there.
Posted by: strat

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/18/13 01:56 AM

A guide who I took a learning to lead two day lesson from about 12 years ago at a different location once told me that somehow The Gunks manages to absorb the pressure put on it by its proximity to such a population in a way that other areas never could. I guess that was true then because when you read threads like have occured in the last few pages here, you realize it can't accomodate that pressure and stay true to its heritage. Rich, it's sad that you're one of the few carrying the torch you are carrying. It's even more sad that the only governing/regulating body that has the power to preserve the heritage of climbing there, doesn't. And it is perhaps a little shocking to me that at least one climber can't see the trees for the forest. Back to lurking. I suppose my status of non-Gunks climber doesn't give me a valid voice anyway. Keep fighting Rich, it's worth it.
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/18/13 03:01 PM

I once saw a photo of the Trapps, I believe from the '30s, with a truely staggering number of trees present. I've only been climbing there since '78 and have seen a significant change. We have all seen the beating that young trees take as everyone drags rope across them, steps on them, etc. There is no way the area will retain the population of trees we have enjoyed on the cliff if we aren't careful and smart. So what? I think present and future climbers appreciate the time they spend around the snakes, birds, skinks, etc. that inhabit the area and there would be far less of that if the tree population erodes far enough. How about asthetics?
I love that I have the top of the cliff to myself most of the time, but is that robbing Peter to pay Paul? This is a complex problem but worth continued discussion. Without shutting down the numbers allowed, the area will degrade in some way. I remain fully with Rich on anchors but there are those days when it rains mid-pitch or someone needs to bail for another reason. There is nothing wrong with leaving gear or a temporary tree sling and buying new stuff later when the carrion swoop in for the booty or to remove the slingage. We can all afford it. Be nice to the trees.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/18/13 04:28 PM

Chip brings up an interesting point. The foliage is as much a part of the environment as the wildlife.

Why can't we as a climbing community take as much care of the cliffface trees as we do with the wildlife?

Additionally, imagine what your summer time climbing will be like without the respite of shade beneath those conveniently placed trees while you belay your partner or client up to the belay.
Posted by: tradjunkie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/18/13 09:15 PM

So we manage to kill the shade trees on the cliff but not the chigger habitat. What's up with that?
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/18/13 10:47 PM

Originally Posted By: tradjunkie
So we manage to kill the shade trees on the cliff but not the chigger habitat. What's up with that?

The only way to get rid of chiggers would be to nuke the whole place.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/18/13 10:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Rickster
Originally Posted By: tradjunkie
So we manage to kill the shade trees on the cliff but not the chigger habitat. What's up with that?

The only way to get rid of chiggers would be to nuke the whole place.


Except then, we'd have chiggers the size of cows.
Posted by: GOclimb

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/20/13 08:03 PM

As another climber who is no longer resident at the Gunks, I will refrain from adding my $.02 to the anchor discussion. However as a long time gunks.commer, I think it is perfectly reasonable to share my opinion on the larger subject. It is this:

kenr - I don't know you, and maybe you're not like this in real life, but the way you present yourself here you come off like a self-centered ass who thinks of nothing more than his own convenience.

Cheers, all.

GO
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/21/13 02:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Rickster
Except then, we'd have chiggers the size of cows.

Ooooo. Cow chiggers! Now that's good eatin'.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/21/13 04:37 PM

Originally Posted By: retroscree
Originally Posted By: Rickster
Except then, we'd have chiggers the size of cows.

Ooooo. Cow chiggers! Now that's good eatin'.


I'm sure. But, the anti-GMO folks wouldn't like it one damn bit. whistle
Posted by: chip

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/21/13 05:12 PM

What's not to love?! We could solve world hunger!
Originally Posted By: Rickster
Originally Posted By: retroscree
Originally Posted By: Rickster
Except then, we'd have chiggers the size of cows.

Ooooo. Cow chiggers! Now that's good eatin'.


I'm sure. But, the anti-GMO folks wouldn't like it one damn bit. whistle
Posted by: oenophore

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/21/13 09:42 PM

What an antic thread deviation this has turned out to be! crazy
Posted by: gunkette

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 07/04/13 08:29 PM

Cut some webbing off of the top of P1 of Ursula - one layer had been sawed through by the sharp edge of the rock up there. The red slings are still there and still look good, but they are a little fuzzy by that edge. Left some of the old tat there as cushion, but next person up might want to bring some webbing/cord to reinforce. If I can convince my partner to go back on Sunday, I will make sure it happens!
Posted by: BrianRI

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/14/13 07:53 PM

Still would like to see the bolt on Wonderland replaced. I would do it but I'm not local.
Posted by: LoganSchiff

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/16/13 01:34 PM

You weren't comforted by the ancient pin a few feet below the bolt, which it seems like you can only back up with a micronut?
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/20/13 12:39 AM

Rumor has it the Maria Direct pin is gone. Wonder how many falls that thing saw in its lifetime.
Posted by: BrianRI

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/21/13 01:32 PM

Originally Posted By: LoganSchiff
You weren't comforted by the ancient pin a few feet below the bolt, which it seems like you can only back up with a micronut?


I climb straight up from the bottom instead of traversing in which is a lot less comforting than the old pin and bolt. Nonetheless some beefy guy is going to whip on the bolt and snap it.
AND while I'm adding my druthers chop the top-rope anchor on Son of Easy O.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/26/13 03:48 PM

MF pin is still there. No idea what the MP report (ie, source of said rumor) was about.
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/26/13 05:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Julie
MF pin is still there. No idea what the MP report (ie, source of said rumor) was about.

MF, as you say here, or Maria Direct, as you originally reported?
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/26/13 11:31 PM

Maria Direct, sorry for the confusion.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 08/27/13 06:41 AM

I would not cry over the pin on Maria Direct, if it were actually gone. I back it up with a cam anyway. It is completely unnecessary.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/01/13 12:24 PM

Why is there a fixed anchor at the top of pitch one of Bonnie's? The slings are really faded and stiff, and though there are some newer cordalettes attached it is unclear what they are attached to. No one descends from this anchor, you can't reach it from the top. It should be chopped and removed, it's nothing but litter as far as I can tell. I've never used it without adding other pieces anyway.
Posted by: Dana

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/01/13 01:46 PM

Do you mean the sling nest 10-15 feet (?) past the crux? If so, that has been placed/removed many times through the years. It is a convenience toprope anchor.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/01/13 02:01 PM

No, that one is gone, I hope, for good. I'm talking about the one at the end of the long pitch one. It also needs to go!
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/02/13 05:39 PM

I've said it over and over again, but I'll say it again.

Fixed gear that is not the bolts placed by the Preserve has no special status. According to both current rules and longstanding common practice, anyone can remove fixed gear and anyone can replace it. Of course, since the competence to place pitons has vanished among climbers who don't do alpine climbing and/or big wall aid routes, people with the will and motivation to place fixed gear anchors expect those anchors to become semi-permanent, and not disappear in a few days, as might easily have happened in the past. But those expectations are not justified by any Preserve rules or universally agreed-on community practices, and so anyone adding or enhancing anchors has to be prepared to see their work undone, and anyone planning on using such anchors ought to have an alternate plan in mind. There is no god-given right to finding a rap anchor where you want it.

Some people replace and/or enhance anchors as what they perceive to be a "public service," and in many cases people agree with them. On the other hand, removing anchors is also viewed as a "public service" by those who do that. Obviously, in many situations, we have different ideas about what constitutes a public service, which reflects the fact that, in general, there actually isn't a public that is being served, just groups with competing visions, not only of what climbing in general and trad climbing in particular ought to be about, but also about how climber modifications of the environment should fit in with Preserve ideals, which are hardly wilderness ideals and yet do envision limits on human impacts.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/03/13 01:34 PM

I'm not sure if I'm the target of the info, Rich. But I know there is no need to seek permission to remove a tat anchor. I used to carry a knife with me but I lost it. If I find myself at the top of Bonnie's P1 again in the near future I plan to bring a knife and chop that crap.
Posted by: Dana

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/03/13 08:48 PM

The fixed "anchors" are more than an eyesore; they are dangerous. I would bet that about 5% or less of the climbers that rap off of these rats nests inspect what they are trusting their lives to. It's scary.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/07/13 03:42 AM

Anchor atop The Nose is looking good.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 09/17/13 12:41 AM

Hey I was psyched to see a new pin on Feast of Fools for my (spray) onsight lead!
Posted by: AlexS

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 10/06/13 08:52 PM

I'm new on here and new to The Gunks; my first time climbing here was just this month. This place is amazing!

I personally find the numerous bolted rap anchors, placed 15 or so years ago, much more than just convenient. They seem well thought out, conservative to the trees and trails, remove visual detractors like colorful and often decaying webbing including potentially unsafe shifting pins and/or nuts, etc. With that said, I climbed The Sting for my first time last week and upon arriving at the anchor of about 5 passive pieces tied together with a yellow runner, 2 of the nuts were fully loose, another was not equalized and a couple others are simply held in by pebbles adhered to the inside of the crack. I realize this has been the anchor since at least '83, been utilized by hundreds of climbers and of course there's a crack there but a 2-bolt anchor seems prudent. Even if the pulls were only down the plumb-line of The Sting and not from lowering off/top-roping from Lisa or even Wasp Stop's abridged first pitch, I still think a bolted anchor would be better.

Yeah that's a long post for such a short route but hey, it's a phenomenal line!!!
Posted by: Jean Climbs

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 10/22/13 04:03 PM

Climbed Sixish yesterday and found the fixed anchor at the top of Pitch One to be disturbing. It is webbing built onto 3 rusty pitons in the horizontal. The left 2 pins are slung with bright tubular webbing and the right pin has its own webbing which is tied at a different length so it is not equalized with the left side. In addition, there is what looks to be 5mm perlon threaded through all 3 pins in the dreaded American Triangle configuration with a single piece of quick-lock style triangular hardware attached. (Personally I wouldn't put ANY weight on this much less use it for a rap anchor!) Seeing as this is a somewhat popular beginner climb (I imagine new leaders use it a lot) I wonder how often this stuff is used unknowingly. Yes, it can be backed up with a small cam in the same horizontal crack, but seems to me at least replacing and/or equalizing the webbing and cutting away the perlon and funky hardware would be advised. I do not know the protocol or if local climbers generally take care of replacing anchors, so I am posting for both info/awareness and if to see if anyone has appropriate comments concerning this specific anchor. I have a photo but could not find the "File Manager" anywhere to attach the photo to this post.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 10/23/13 02:59 AM

"I do not know the protocol or if local climbers generally take care of replacing anchors"

The Preserve inspects & maintains the bolted anchors, the rest is subject to the whims of climbers. People like anchors, they build them. People don't like anchors, they chop them. People think anchors are dangerous, they replace them.

Thanks for posting the Sixish situation. The sagacity of such anchor being in place is questionable, but if it stands it should at least be safe and pretty - equalized software and all.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 10/23/13 04:48 AM

The best thing that could happen would be for those pins to be removed. You can get a perfectly good gear anchor there.

Perhaps the real problem is that the Preserve built, or started building, rap routes but never did anything about marking them from the top so people could find them.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 10/23/13 04:59 AM

On another topic, I noticed after an ascent of CCK direct last Friday that there is new a rap anchor on the tree at the top of CCK direct. I almost took it down and will still if I'm back there soon, but didn't at the time because I was in a hurry.

This rap anchor sends descending parties straight down CCK and is one of an increasing number of textbook examples of how to ruin popular routes by adding, to people lining up to climb the route, a new set of people rapping down it. There's a Preserve bolted rappel at most a few hundred feet to the North, but you have to know the cliff. (The High E rappel is further north but quite near too.)
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/03/13 12:08 PM

Rap line down Dry Martini/Tequila Mockingbird is in very bad shape. Former anchor had some tricams and hexes, now its just two knifeblades that flex under weight.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/03/13 06:07 PM

Those pins have been the only anchor for a while and they are a timebomb. I chopped that rap line from the tree up top a while back but I guess some folks would rather take their chances than walk a few meters.

Originally Posted By: Lucander
Rap line down Dry Martini/Tequila Mockingbird is in very bad shape. Former anchor had some tricams and hexes, now its just two knifeblades that flex under weight.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/03/13 07:49 PM

ianmanger,

which alternative rap line do you recommend? going right to madame g/blueberry ledges adds to congestion. going left to three pines isn't exactly desirable.

as of last season the second anchor (pins mentioned above) were in good shape - supplemented with a few fixed pieces and fresh software.
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/03/13 08:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
which alternative rap line do you recommend? going right to madame g/blueberry ledges adds to congestion. going left to three pines isn't exactly desirable.

So what you're saying is: Whaaaaa! There isn't a rap line exactly where I want it at the top of my route and I might have to walk a little bit.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/03/13 08:45 PM

Pretty much, yes. Judging by the conditions of the pitons, which are relics, it's a "historic" descent route as well. If we're going to get petty, I'm pulling that card.

The facts are, (1) as long as there is a well-maintained rappel station at the top on a solid tree (which there is), people are going to use it. (2) not everyone is as smart as retro or anyone else who uses this site. (3) people will take risks and rap off of bad anchors. Maybe it's Darwinism at work, but I don't want to spend my day cleaning up the mess.

Therefore, I posted about the condition of the anchor in question. Folks who follow this site and plan accordingly by (1) rappelling with double ropes (2) walking off towards the Uberfall alongside some other zealots who think it's a good use of their day off and would rather not be climbing another route or (3) bringing spare gear and reinforcing the anchor.
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/03/13 09:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
Pretty much, yes. Judging by the conditions of the pitons, which are relics, it's a "historic" descent route as well. If we're going to get petty, I'm pulling that card.

The facts are, (1) as long as there is a well-maintained rappel station at the top on a solid tree (which there is), people are going to use it. (2) not everyone is as smart as retro or anyone else who uses this site. (3) people will take risks and rap off of bad anchors. Maybe it's Darwinism at work, but I don't want to spend my day cleaning up the mess.

Therefore, I posted about the condition of the anchor in question. Folks who follow this site and plan accordingly by (1) rappelling with double ropes (2) walking off towards the Uberfall alongside some other zealots who think it's a good use of their day off and would rather not be climbing another route or (3) bringing spare gear and reinforcing the anchor.

If you want to maximize your climbing, maybe you should go back into the gym.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/04/13 12:16 AM

Either works. 'Isn't exactly desirable' is weak sauce. As is claiming that a couple of old pins implies an historic descent route that should be grandfathered in to the collection of convenience anchors/poorly maintained piles of tat, since we actually know nothing. Chop and move along. Eliminate the possibility of cleaning up the mess you claim you want to avoid.

Originally Posted By: Lucander
ianmanger,

which alternative rap line do you recommend? going right to madame g/blueberry ledges adds to congestion. going left to three pines isn't exactly desirable.

as of last season the second anchor (pins mentioned above) were in good shape - supplemented with a few fixed pieces and fresh software.
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/04/13 12:43 AM

Originally Posted By: ianmanger
'Isn't exactly desirable' is weak sauce. As is claiming that a couple of old pins implies an historic descent route that should be grandfathered in to the collection of convenience anchors/poorly maintained piles of tat, since we actually know nothing.

+1
Anyone with half a brain can figure out that it's an ancient belay anchor, back when everyone walked off the top. Calling it a historic descent route is bullshit and lucander knows it.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/04/13 01:34 AM

The main historic descent routes (regularly used):

1. Uberfall
2. Radcliffe
3. Easy O unroped downclimb
4. Three Pines unroped downclimb
5. Silly Chimney unroped downclimb
6. Roger's Escape Hatch

There were no historic descent routes that involved rappelling. As retro says, the pins in question were more likely an old belay anchor.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/04/13 01:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Lucander

...Folks who follow this site and plan accordingly by...(2) walking off towards the Uberfall alongside some other zealots who think it's a good use of their day off and would rather not be climbing another route or...


Oh come on. The Preserve established bolted rappel lines down the cliff. There is more than one close to the descent in question. Congestion on the rappel highways is a small and reasonable price to pay when the alternative is congestion everywhere, two-way traffic on routes, and dangerous rap stations that idiots use without thinking.

Since the Preserve seems to think the dumb yellow falling climber signs are ok, they should try something that will contribute to both safety and esthetics by marking the rap routes at the top so that the zealots who can't be bothered to learn even the tiniest non-climbing detail about their environment will be able to find their way down.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/04/13 01:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
……..
Therefore, I posted about the condition of the anchor in question. Folks who follow this site and plan accordingly by (1) rappelling with double ropes (2) walking off towards the Uberfall alongside some other zealots who think it's a good use of their day off and would rather not be climbing another route or (3) bringing spare gear and reinforcing the anchor.


Who's the zealot? The climbers taking a casual walk along the ridge to return below after climbing or the fellow who seems to demand that a rap line be immediately available and adjacent to the route he has just finished so he can zip on down and move onto his next climb?

Lucander also fails to list a fourth option offered above and I believe currently used more often. That ever popular option being a walk along the ridge to the nearest of the established rappel routes.
Posted by: tradjunkie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/04/13 01:58 PM

Well, hang on, Lucander brings up a valid point. The rappel station at the TOP of the climb is in good condition off a big honkin' tree, which invites rappelling, particularly among less wise/experienced climbers. Rappelling there will dump them at the nasty pin station, and such climbers are unlikely to prussik back up and walk off.

[The more thoughtful climbers among them will have spied the piton rap anchor on their way up before descending, but one can't visit the station to inspect it on the way up. I can understand someone on Dry Martini seeing pitons with slings from afar, then reaching the big tree on top, thinking, "oh, this will get me to the piton rappel station I saw," and making the assumption that the good condition of the top station will be indicative of the condition of the middle station.]

Now, I posit that walking off will be faster in nearly all cases, but that's a larger discussion. Eliminating the rappel line will simply move the traffic to 3 Pines or Beginner's Delight / Minty / Snooky, none of which are more than a 2-3 minute clifftop stroll.

So let's all put the flamethrowers down. I think many of us agree that this particular rappel route is unnecessary. However, I think it will be difficult to permanently extinguish it until the tree at the top dies. Even if we do, in all likelihood the traffic will simply move to 3 Pines, Beginners Delight, and Minty/Snooky's, none of which need more clusterfookage than they currently have.

If y'all prefer to send traffic down 3 Pines, then let's cut the top anchor and see what happens. If it doesn't get replaced, great. Otherwise, I think replacing the pins is wise, especially since most of the casual climbers I'm referring to are unlikely to be able to back up the pins.
Posted by: tradjunkie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/04/13 02:24 PM

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
As retro says, the pins in question were more likely an old belay anchor.


RG, not in this case. There is no old route at the anchor in question, which is above a difficult roof. The only possibility of routes that would belay here is a 5.11 route I am not familiar with, Tits Like Orange Fireballs, which was first climbed in 1988, and which may go through the roof.

Otherwise, it's a strange spot for an anchor. One would have to traverse well off to the right of the obvious line of Tequila Mockingbird, ignoring various comfortable belay options, and strike out into a wide blank face.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/04/13 04:03 PM

Originally Posted By: tradjunkie


If y'all prefer to send traffic down 3 Pines, then let's cut the top anchor and see what happens. If it doesn't get replaced, great.


I did this experiment, probably five years ago now. The rap station from the top reappears, and probably pretty quickly. Most likely this from climbers coming up from below thinking they can reach the 2-pin anchor exactly as you describe.

The only viable solution that does not involve major anchor work is to chop both. Then climbers coming up won't think of putting the top anchor back in, and climbers moving along the cliff won't see the top anchor and assume there is a viable rap route.

Clearly some climbers think its OK to remove gear that's left to back up the existing mank but I would rather not beef up the anchor permanently with new honking pins a la SOEO. Its not a major toprope destination, which was the argument advanced in that example and which I still find uncompelling.
Posted by: Mike Rawdon

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/04/13 07:15 PM

Or maybe we need a BIG SIGN at the top (tree) rap station saying that this is a 50+ meter i.e. 2 rope rappel.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/08/13 06:31 AM

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/old-anc...rades/108404216

Indian Creek seems to have a pretty efficient way of updating and maintaining anchors.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/08/13 04:01 PM

IC it a totally different situation from the Gunks. One or two-pitch routes are rappelled from bolts from the top of the pitch, and the rappel routes basically go straight down the climbs. The climbs literally end at the bolts.

The problems we are seeing in the Trapps are the proliferation of non-bolted anchors of varying quality and longevity, a process that undermines the Preserve concept of established descent lines that would keep dangerous and frustrating two-way traffic on routes to a minimum.

Admittedly, the Preserve came upon the descent-line concept only after instituting an ill-advised bolting process that created two-way traffic. And it may be that additional descent lines are or will ultimately be called for. As it is, the original intention to decrease tat and make rappelling safer has been compromised by climbers' insatiable need for rap anchors everywhere they feel the need to descend.

One of the problems with the established descent lines is that they have to be found from the top, and we are told that except for a few "zealots," climbers don't think even a hundred yards or two of walking at the top "is a good use of their day off" because the time involved might keep them from "climbing another route." If such an astonishingly self-centered sense of entitlement really characterizes the general climbing population---which I seriously doubt---then there would be little hope for preventing the Trapps from becoming webbed with tat.

A much more likely explanation, which still involves a remarkable lack of curiosity and interest in any part of the environment that isn't graded vertical rock, is that climbers don't know how to find the descent lines and have no interest in figuring out where they are. This might be remedied by placing some cairns in locations that would help to locate the lines from above, but the cairns won't work if a significant number of climbers, who Lucander bizarrely classifies as the "non-zealots," are going to insist on throwing some slings around every tree at the precise tops of the routes so they can rap back down without the heartbreak of having to take a horizontal step.
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/10/13 02:45 PM

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc

The problems we are seeing in the Trapps are the proliferation of non-bolted anchors of varying quality and longevity, a process that undermines the Preserve concept of established descent lines that would keep dangerous and frustrating two-way traffic on routes to a minimum.


RG, I haven't climbed here as long as you have but I am quickly approaching my 30th season in the Gunks and during this time it seems that the number of anchors have remained about the same, perhaps there are fewer anchors now. Maybe I am fooling myself and I am not remembering things clearly, but that is my recollection. As a teenager learning to lead in the Gunks we never considered the descent because you could rappel anywhere because there were always trees with slings. My mentors taught me never to rappel off of trees without slings due to the damage done to the tree, but I still witnessed this being done. It also seemed that there were many more solitary anchors, such as a single sling on a small tree 30 feet up. With shorter ropes and no standard rappel routes people often came up short and just swung over to the nearest tree. It also seemed like there were more people getting off route or getting in over their heads back then, so there were more bail slings. Today, the difference is that the trees are all dying.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/10/13 03:39 PM

The obvious questions then being, where should additional bolted descent lines be placed and what lines of argument might induce the Preserve to support a request for their placement?
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/10/13 04:38 PM

A synonym for zealot is dogmatist, perhaps I should have used that term instead?

I posted the Indian Creek page to illustrate the difference between New York and Utah. Here, everyone has an opinion (and thinks its worth sharing) - that's why we have a 35 page thread on anchors. It's a quirk of our region, and it's probably not going to change. In Utah, they fix anchors and people thank one another for their time and money. That's Mormons for ya.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/10/13 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
A synonym for zealot is dogmatist, perhaps I should have used that term instead?


What would be better would be to stop using straw-man arguments and snide ad-hominen references and try to have a rational discussion about the real issues.

Originally Posted By: Lucander
I posted the Indian Creek page to illustrate the difference between New York and Utah.


Seriously? In less than a minute I found the following four anchor ranting threads on MP. If I had the time and interest, I could probably post fifty.

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/what-is...050#a_106949186

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/geezer-wall-bolt-removal/106554912__1

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/wtf/106448057#a_106483193

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/the-low...335#a_105996831

My guess is that there is far more controversy going on in Utah than we'll ever see in New York.

Originally Posted By: cfrac
RG, I haven't climbed here as long as you have but I am quickly approaching my 30th season in the Gunks and during this time it seems that the number of anchors have remained about the same, perhaps there are fewer anchors now.


Chris, we are both operating on the basis impressions that, in addition to being intrinsically unreliable, are affected by our choice of locales, frequency of visits, and other sources of sampling variability. Perhaps you are right, I certainly have no hard evidence for what I'm saying about proliferation.

I agree there has been a decrease in what appear to be bail anchors, perhaps as a result of there being much more information out there and a lot less uncertainty. I don't think anyone puts a rope directly around a tree any more for rappelling. What seems to me to be on the increase is well-constructed anchors, in a few cases even cables, with no apparent thought about the the myriad bad effects of running descent lines straight down ascent lines, and clearly with no acknowledgement of often nearby bolted rappel descents installed by the Preserve.

Seriously, does anyone here think that the convenience of having a rappel route running down an ascent route outweighs the experiential and safety considerations for ascending parties and makes such routes preferable to walking a hundred yards to a Preserve rap line. Anyone? I'd really like to hear a rational argument for that position.

The founding flaw of this thread is what appears to be an intrinsic assumption that all anchors are good and deserve to be upgraded when they deteriorate.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/10/13 11:14 PM

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc
The founding flaw of this thread is what appears to be an intrinsic assumption that all anchors are good and deserve to be upgraded when they deteriorate.

So what do you suggest? Leave an anchor alone if it's on an ascent route?
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/10/13 11:31 PM

Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc

The founding flaw of this thread is what appears to be an intrinsic assumption that all anchors are good and deserve to be upgraded when they deteriorate.


With some elbow tendonitis and a bit of free time I find myself once again sucked into the fray! Here goes:

Not all anchors are good, but if an anchor is fixed and used regularly it should be good and does deserve upgrading when it deteriorates.

The way it is now not everyone uses the preserve anchors to descend due to a variety of reasons. The other anchors are in a constant state of being cut and then soon replaced. As a result trees are dying and the anchors are often unsafe.

There was a college campus that built its campus without sidewalks. After a year of seeing where the students chose to walk by observing the matted down grass the sidewalks were built. The campus did not have the dirt pathways that appear on many college lawns.

In reading John Stannard's newsletter Eastern Trade I learned about the original dilemma of copious trails leading to the base of routes. After set trails were added this problem subsided. There were enough trails positioned and marked to establish a better way to approach the base. It didn't result in an infinite number of trails.

My point is that in order to save the remaining trees in the Trapps, the most commonly used rap stations should be replaced with bolts near, but off to the side of the trees and the ascending climb. They should be convenient.

The other option is to continue to argue that there should be no other fixed anchors besides what the preserve has installed and watch as the remaining trees die and perhaps have a few people die due to anchor failure.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/11/13 12:40 AM

Originally Posted By: cfrac

With some elbow tendonitis and a bit of free time I find myself once again sucked into the fray!


Sorry to hear about the elbows. It seems the gold standard for rehabbing them is negative wrist curls. See http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3614 and http://www.drjuliansaunders.com/resources/feature_articles/dodgy_elbows/ .

Originally Posted By: cfrac

Not all anchors are good, but if an anchor is fixed and used regularly it should be good and does deserve upgrading when it deteriorates.


I don't understand the "fixed" qualification. Isn't every anchor under discussion "fixed?" I'm not sure I understand the "used regularly" qualification either. How is regularity quantified and what use thresholds apply?

In any case, I think you're proposing far too low a gate. If, as recently has happened, someone puts a rap anchor at the top of CCK, thereby creating two-way traffic on the route, there is still an excellent chance that it will be used regularly, but is it a good idea to have it in the first place?

Originally Posted By: cfrac
The way it is now not everyone uses the preserve anchors to descend due to a variety of reasons.


One of which is the proliferation of convenience anchors right in front of their eyes so they don't have to look for the Preserve lines.

Originally Posted By: cfrac
The other anchors are in a constant state of being cut and then soon replaced. As a result trees are dying and the anchors are often unsafe.


This is a non-sequitor; the constant cutting and replacing is not killing the trees. The presence of the anchors is killing the trees. Every day the anchor isn't there is a good day for the tree, so the more cutting the better from the tree perspective.

Originally Posted By: cfrac

There was a college campus that built its campus without sidewalks. After a year of seeing where the students chose to walk by observing the matted down grass the sidewalks were built. The campus did not have the dirt pathways that appear on many college lawns.


This was the original Preserve idea and it was not a success, probably for the same reason the campus experiment (if true) worked: people will usually try to take the shortest distance between two points. Other considerations of importance are not on their radar.

Originally Posted By: cfrac
In reading John Stannard's newsletter Eastern Trade I learned about the original dilemma of copious trails leading to the base of routes. After set trails were added this problem subsided. There were enough trails positioned and marked to establish a better way to approach the base. It didn't result in an infinite number of trails.


This would be an argument for set rappel routes and the vigorous discouragement of all others.

Quote:
My point is that in order to save the remaining trees in the Trapps, the most commonly used rap stations should be replaced with bolts near, but off to the side of the trees and the ascending climb. They should be convenient.


I'm not at all against saving trees, but I think the most important questions have to do with the creation of two-way traffic on popular routes.

In any case, what are the "most commonly used rap stations" and how is this decided? If a "commonly used rap station" is fifty feet from a Preserve rap line, should it too be replaced with bolted anchors? What about some regions that have a lot of climbs side-by-side? You won't be able to just put some bolts "off to the side" and keep the descenders from colliding with ascenders. If the station is "commonly used," does it get bolted anyway?

And "they should be convenient?" Who decides that? And when the "decider" fails to create bolted anchor, what will prevent the growth of anchors someone else deems "convenient?" Isn't that pretty much what's happening now, and if so doesn't your proposal solve little or nothing?


Quote:
The other option is to continue to argue that there should be no other fixed anchors besides what the preserve has installed and watch as the remaining trees die and perhaps have a few people die due to anchor failure.


Spare us the dire prognostications! Rapelling has been a major source of accidents in the Gunks and if you don't want people to die you should probably make 'em all walk back with the zealots and dogmatists. Moreover, I don't see why there are only two options. The Preserve could create more rap routes, or even without doing that could provide better information and marking for the ones that exist.

One thing I'm pretty sure of: if and when an "appropriate" number of fixed descent lines are created, if there isn't an outright ban on the creation of more anchors, nothing will change for the climbers or the trees.
Posted by: mummert

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/11/13 04:40 AM

Quote:
It seems the gold standard for rehabbing them is negative wrist curls. See http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3614 and http://www.drjuliansaunders.com/resources/feature_articles/dodgy_elbows/ .


In the last 3 or 4 years, there's been new studies on treating tennis elbow using Theraband Flexbars. It worked well for me, and I'll occasionally just pick one up while watching TV or a movie.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/phys-ed-an-easy-fix-for-tennis-elbow/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2971639/
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/11/13 04:58 AM

Originally Posted By: mummert

In the last 3 or 4 years, there's been new studies on treating tennis elbow using Theraband Flexbars...


Oh yeah, I forgot to mention these, they provide another way to do eccentric forearm contractions. It's the eccentric part that is common to all the methods and that seems to be the secret weapon in elbow tendinitis rehab.

The trouble with the Flexbars is that they come in different strengths, so there is an initial question of which one to begin with, and then subsequent questions about possibly upgrading to stiffer ones. The advantage is that they are easily transported and make good conversations starters. Using either the homemade "hammer of Thorette" in the UK article or just the dumbells suggested by Dr. Saunders provides more fine-tuning ability and may be cheaper if you already have some of the weights around the house.
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/11/13 03:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
http://www.mountainproject.com/v/old-anc...rades/108404216

Indian Creek seems to have a pretty efficient way of updating and maintaining anchors.

Different area. Different history. Different ethics.
For starters, a lot of IC routes don't have any alternate descent options.
Invalid comparison.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/11/13 04:14 PM

Also in Indian Creek no one has sore elbows, so the comparison is just silly.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/11/13 05:01 PM

Couple of meandering points.
Seems obvious that the more we establish semi-permanent anchors on lines, the more they will be used for both anchoring and rappelling the same way. This can't be a good thing, esp if most of the anchors at the top of the cliff use trees.

Biggest issue I see is that folks often just to want to knock out a bunch of de facto single pitch lines without both climbers (or their party of seven) leaving the ground. We have a bounty of great 'one pitch wonders' which fit this, and those lines which aren't bolted inevitably start to acquire nests of tat at the top of P1. We can't force people to top out mad even if the upper pitches are stellar. These intermediate nests immediately lead to the slinging of trees at the top per Tequila Mockingbird.

There are also a minority of climbs that might have topped out historically but now aren't generally climbed all the way up. (I was just on Last Frontier, for example)If they were ever cleaned is unclear as lichen is starting to come back. I would support requesting the Preserve to fix some of these.. maybe a list would help.

Rich, I think we have to address that this is just how stuff gets climbed these days. I'm all for directing rap lines appropriately and maybe asking the Preserve to consider adding more lines from the top, but I didn't get any takers as to whether this was indeed necessary or where these might be. Perhaps the top of Silly Chimney. I would guess that few climbers are going to down climb that these days. Lets be realistic about managing changing climber habits. There is a huge and good looking tree slung there and we shouldn't kill that.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/11/13 05:51 PM

All those paradigm shifts.
From.. pins to all nut ascents.
From..walking off to rapping down.
From.. leave nothing behind, to all the fooking tat.

Just to name a few.
Posted by: ianmanger

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/11/13 06:11 PM

Yes. Not all change is good. We are struggling with how to manage the massive uptick in climber numbers and habits. I'm all for chopping tat, clearing these anchors and banning chalk, but feel like I'm in the minority.


Maybe if we want to do this properly, maybe we should ask the Preserve to annually restate its policy ( say as a flyer that you get when you renew) that all non-bolted anchors should be regarded as litter and may be removed at any time, and that therefore you shouldn't depend upon them, so that efforts to remove then could be legitimized. I don't see other easy ways to impact the whole climber community.

Would also be helpful if they could publish an annual list of currently bolted anchors and descent lines and solicit climber comments on proposed changes.

That would be nice....

Originally Posted By: Rickster
All those paradigm shifts.
From.. pins to all nut ascents.
From..walking off to rapping down.
From.. leave nothing behind, to all the fooking tat.

Just to name a few.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/12/13 12:30 AM

[/quote]
Different area. Different history. Different ethics.
For starters, a lot of IC routes don't have any alternate descent options.
Invalid comparison. [/quote]

Well...like the Gunks, many of these climbs are not done beyond half of a rope length. Alternative anchors other than bolts can be found (snipped cams, pitons, nuts, or for here, trees). Gang toproping. Legacy of staunchly traditional ground-up style. Visionary first ascents. Myopic modern climbers who rarely, if ever, go more than 100' off the ground. Even various forms of sandstone (okay, that's a stretch). All we need is some Mormons and an "era of good feelings."
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/12/13 12:32 AM

The "anchor" on the tiny tree below the Drunkard's Delight roof is gone. Scary to think that people rapped off that - it had three different pieces of webbing and a fat link.

Looking to the right: there's some weird tat and a biner on the Bloody Mary tree. You know the one, under the roof.

Let philosophical discussions about the merits of these anchors and debates filled with conjecture ensue...
Posted by: GOclimb

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/12/13 07:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
Quote:

Different area. Different history. Different ethics.
For starters, a lot of IC routes don't have any alternate descent options.
Invalid comparison.


Well...like the Gunks, many of these climbs are not done beyond half of a rope length. Alternative anchors other than bolts can be found (snipped cams, pitons, nuts, or for here, trees). Gang toproping. Legacy of staunchly traditional ground-up style. Visionary first ascents. Myopic modern climbers who rarely, if ever, go more than 100' off the ground. Even various forms of sandstone (okay, that's a stretch). All we need is some Mormons and an "era of good feelings."


I really hope you're just being silly on purpose, and don't truly think this is anything like a fair comparison.

GO
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/18/13 01:12 PM


Last weekend a friend and I hiked the top of the Trapps starting at Easy Keyhole and ending at High E. We liked the idea of marking the main rap stations with cairns, so we thought we would inspect the anchors and build cairns. The landscape and what we learned on the hike kept us from building the cairns.

We learned several things on this hike, but the main points were these:
Generally speaking, if a climb tops out where the hillside is pitched there will either be an erosion gully or the beginnings of an erosion gully.
The trees in the erosion gully top-outs are either dying or already dead.
Anywhere the cliff is flat or angled back at a top-out (mostly from the Arrow wall to High E) erosion is almost non-existent and the trees are in good shape.

We took pictures of every top anchor, but here are two examples that show the extremes:





I realize that many of us have different ideas of how to solve this problem, but I think we all agree there is a problem and it needs to be addressed. Dick Williams and volunteers have done a tremendous amount of work at the base of the cliff, but nothing is being done about the cliff top ecosystem.
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/18/13 01:33 PM

Here is the Middle Earth rap station, which is North of the previous two photos:
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/20/13 05:34 AM

Interesting work Chris! I think a presentation ought to be made to the Preserve. They have taken the position that, with the general demise of walking back to the Uberfall, the cliff top ecology has benefited, but the erosion around rap trees on sloping ground suggests this is not entirely true.

If climbers are going to be encouraged to walk to the Preserve bolted rappels, then the Preserve would have to reconcile itself to more foot traffic along the top.

I might add that my suggestion about cairns was to mark the bolted rappel routes, some of which can be found only if you really know where to go, since in a number of cases the bolts are neither visible from nor exactly at the top.
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/20/13 10:42 PM

I should have said the bolted anchors, not the "major" anchors. These are the bolted stations in the Trapps that start at the top. They are not evenly distributed.

1. Frog's Head easy to walk to, we did build a cairn
2. Arch The approach is on a steep hill and there was no reasonable place for a cairn
3. Three Pines no good place for a cairn
4. LeTeton again, no good place for a cairn

Then there is a big gap until the Arrow Wall

5. Arrow & Limelight no cairn needed
6. Strolling on Jupiter no cairn needed
7. High Exposure no cairn needed

The biggest erosion and tree damage has occurred between Belly Roll and Baby. There are sporadic erosion problems walking North, primarily Shockley's and Middle Earth descents, but the problems end at the Arrow wall. This of course does not address many of the GT ledge tree rappels and various other mid-climb tree anchors.

I like the suggestion, so I think I will print out the photos and present them to the Preserve.
Posted by: Mike Rawdon

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/21/13 01:35 AM

I think you mean City Lights/Pas de Deux bolts are easy to walk to. The Frogs Head bolts are well below the top of the cliff and I wouldn't suggest folks try to scramble down to them.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/21/13 03:52 AM

That's how I get off from Drunkard's, Bloody Morning whatever the hell it's called, Size Matters, and if it's really busy, Rock & Brew.
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/21/13 01:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon
I think you mean City Lights/Pas de Deux bolts are easy to walk to.
Yes, that's what I meant.
Posted by: rg@ofmc

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/21/13 02:41 PM

I'm not sure about your cairn claims. I guess I'll have go up and have a look myself.

One I'm sure I disagree about is that the Strolling on Jupiter bolts most definitely needs a cairn; there's no way that station will ever be found by anyone who doesn't know where to climb down from the top, and this is perhaps one of the reasons why the highly unfortunate rap was added at the top of CCK direct.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/21/13 03:55 PM

I really like using the Arch bolts but you have to know where to scramble down because you can't see the chains until you go down a little bit. I would have thought a cairn there would help people.
Posted by: Mike Rawdon

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/21/13 10:41 PM

Realistically, if a climber is new to the Trapps, NONE of the bolted descents is that easy to find. That is, one could walk right by them on the trail.

So what's your pleasure: cairns? Or a series of signs? Or GPS coordinates? Or...
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/22/13 12:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon
So what's your pleasure: cairns? Or a series of signs? Or GPS coordinates? Or...

...trained guide squirrels?
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/22/13 12:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon
...one could walk right by them on the trail.


So this illustrates the problem with the cairns and GPS, maybe not signs. The trail along the top of the Trapps from Sixish North until the Arrow wall is quite far back from the cliff edge. It's maybe 500 feet back and in most places is fairly steep and there are many interspersed smaller sub cliff bands and or thick vegetation.

So this creates many problems with cairn idea. The main problem is that I don't think any climbers walk all the way up to the Trapps cliff top trail(between Sixish & Arrow). There are smaller trails that connect the tops of climbs with the nearest cliff top anchors and from visible use you can see where most people travel and it is the line of least resistance. I encourage everyone to go up there and see for yourself.

But, lets say I am wrong or that you could change climber behavior so that climbers in the area N of Sixish, S of Arrow would walk to the cliff top trail, locate a cairn, then walk down through the woods. This would lead to acceleration of the erosion that has already started to break into the soil for the Arch & Three Pines rappels. I will post pictures of this soon.
The second problem is that you can't really build cairns anywhere else because the hillside is so steep that you would be piling up rocks on a steep slope above a rap anchor.

On a side note the cliff top trail had been painted with blue rectangles very similar to the markings found on the Millbrook Ridge Trail, but they have been painted over with grey paint. Also, someone has already attempted to mark the bolted rappels by painting three equidistant black circles on rock near the descents.

So I see three different areas that have different issues:

Region 1 Belly Roll to Frog's Head, there is a spiders web of cliff top trails. Lots of tree anchors with tree bark suffering, exposed roots, lots of erosion, three instances of the formation of gullies.

Region 2 Frog's Head North to Arrow, Erosion is minimal with the exceptions of soil starting to be exposed at Arch and Three Pines. Shockley's/Strictly erosion is really bad and the Middle Earth rappel has killed two large pine trees and is heavily eroded. Most trails in this region are sub trails used by climbers to walk from the top of their climb to an adjacent rappel anchor.

Region 3 Arrow North to High E, there are basically no erosion problems. You could build cairns here and this would probably help some people in locating them.

Of course all of my observations are subjective, so if you want to see for yourself it's a short and pleasant hike that is worth doing now that the chiggers are done for the season and the leaves are down. Although I have done this cliff top hike many times before I had never done it with the idea of anchor management and cliff top preservation in mind... it certainly opened my eyes!



Posted by: Rickster

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/22/13 03:44 PM

Some history.
The recently painted blue blazes were done without MP authorization and have been subsequently painted over by MP staff.

, the true ridge trail did not get much use from climbers as there was a parallel herd path between it and the cliff edge. Many individual paths from edge go up to intersect this path, then rise further to the ridge trail. The maze of paths is much worse the closer you get to the
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/27/13 01:57 AM


The Arch anchor




The beginnings of erosion on the trail to arch




Photo taken from the clifftop trail. My finger is pointing at the location of the start of the eroded trail in the previous picture. It looks like few if any people approach from here and are traversing in from neighboring climbs rather than coming all the way up here. This hill slope is steeper than it looks in the photo.
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 11/27/13 02:04 AM

Three Pines Anchor



The hill slope above the 3 Pines anchor. It's steep here. You can see a faint trail filled with leaves at the bottom center trending diagonally left.


Further up this slope is a faint trail that cuts up through the rock band in the direction of the pine tree in the distance. The cliff top trail is above and behind the small cliff.
Posted by: Gail

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/10/14 10:25 PM

I would like to see anchors at the top of either Bloody Bush or Rusty Trifle. The trees are dying (Bloody Bush) and people are still rapping off of them. The top tree (p3) on Rusty Trifle has been attacked by woodpeckers and has all kinds of holes around the base of the tree.

Alas, nothing is going to change unless Dick decides there should be more anchors. Why do I say that? Because I watched Dick and some kid install the Madame G anchors several years ago. He hauled up the drill, made some holes, pounded in the anchors and rapped off. Why? Who told him he could do it? My guess, as the foremost authority on gunks climbing, he decided that the little pine was not a worthy rap station. I just wish he would think about all of the other unworthy trees.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/11/14 06:56 PM

Use the Arch bolted rap route.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 04/14/14 07:07 PM

Sounds like the bush anchor on Footloose (5.8 corner two routes right of Wegetables) is getting worse.
Posted by: KathyS

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/17/14 02:17 PM

The pitch 2 rap station for Beginners Delight/Blueberry Ledges/Beetle Brow bulge has a core-shot on one leg. This is the beefy cord anchor that loops around a tree and a block. One of the legs that goes around the block is the damaged one. The core-shot is where it goes over the top edge of the block. I didn\'t have any appropriate replacement gear with me to fix it. The core is still continuous, and there is a redundant loop on the block (both loops on the tree are fine as well), so not in immediate danger of failure, but needs attention soon.

Fyi, the cord appears to be dynamic rope, since I watched it stretch and rub over the block\'s edge while my heavier partner rappelled. Static cord would probably be a better choice.
Posted by: Julie

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 06/23/14 04:07 PM

According to MP, the anchor on the \"mystery route\" that goes up and left from where Ursula traverses right, is in bad bad shape (piton fell out upon lowering) and installed in a rail of rotten rock.
Posted by: cfrac

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 07/13/14 12:48 AM

Rapped off the Jean anchor yesterday. It is composed of two very old large angle pitons and one large old style nut that has a cord instead of a cable. They are all nicely equalized but each piece is individually weak. The crack is #1 camalot size.

Also rapping from the Sixish or Drunkard\'s GT tree will not get you to the ground with a 60m rope. A heavy person with a 70m rope can just about make it, but you still sort of \"pop\" off the end of the rope. This puts you in the position of going to the p1 Sixish anchor which is three very old pitons (lost arrows) with one nicely equalized sling connected with very tiny quick links.

City Lights rappel: Last year the idea was presented of building cairns to mark the rappels but when we went up there most of the places for building cairns created a rockfall hazard. City Lights was an exception so we built a cairn but it has been dismantled.

Lastly, the discussion came up about the new CCK tree anchor. We cut that to avoid the rapid erosion that was taking place. You can get to the Strolling/Last Will be First rap by walking a few hundred feet North and scrambling down.

As I have been spending more time in the Trapps I have been amazed by the serious anchor problem we have. The GCC is working with the Preserve to hopefully address some of the worst cases, but the process has been painfully slow.

Not sure if anyone is still able to read new messages on this site?

CFrac
Posted by: Doug

Re: Shawangunk Anchors - Wish Lists and Updates - 07/14/14 04:47 PM

Originally Posted By: cfrac
Rapped off the Jean anchor yesterday. It is composed of two very old large angle pitons and one large old style nut that has a cord instead of a cable. They are all nicely equalized but each piece is individually weak. The crack is #1 camalot size.

Also rapping from the Sixish or Drunkard\\\'s GT tree will not get you to the ground with a 60m rope. A heavy person with a 70m rope can just about make it, but you still sort of \\\"pop\\\" off the end of the rope. This puts you in the position of going to the p1 Sixish anchor which is three very old pitons (lost arrows) with one nicely equalized sling connected with very tiny quick links.

City Lights rappel: Last year the idea was presented of building cairns to mark the rappels but when we went up there most of the places for building cairns created a rockfall hazard. City Lights was an exception so we built a cairn but it has been dismantled.

Lastly, the discussion came up about the new CCK tree anchor. We cut that to avoid the rapid erosion that was taking place. You can get to the Strolling/Last Will be First rap by walking a few hundred feet North and scrambling down.

As I have been spending more time in the Trapps I have been amazed by the serious anchor problem we have. The GCC is working with the Preserve to hopefully address some of the worst cases, but the process has been painfully slow.

Not sure if anyone is still able to read new messages on this site?

CFrac


I had to change the post/page setting to get your new message - one of the bugs still haunting this place. Quoting in full so others may see it.

Sounded like we were about to migrate to different SW months ago but I guess that isn\'t happening.